PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16689153

Plenary program: Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Wendy E Parmet·Charity Scott·James G Hodge·David E Nahmias·Alfred DeMaria·Clifford M Rees
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Civil RightsCommunicable Disease ControlDisease OutbreaksEmigration and ImmigrationEthnicityHistory, 20th CenturyHumansMassachusettsSmallpoxSocial ResponsibilitySupreme Court DecisionsUnited StatesVaccinationHistorical ArticleJournal ArticleLegal Case

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wendy E Parmet, Charity Scott, James G Hodge, David E Nahmias, Alfred DeMaria, Clifford M Rees. 2005. Plenary program: Jacobson v. Massachusetts.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689153/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Justice and equality in mental health law: the European experience.

This is the text of a lecture delivered at the World Conference of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health in Sydney in September 2003 on the occasion of the award to the author of the Prix Philippe Pinel. Its theme is the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights to secure the human rights of people with mental disorders and disabilities, viewed in the context of the legislation on mental health and mental incapacity in England and Wales. Its conclusion is that the Convention is better at protecting them from unwanted or unnecessary treatment and care than it is at securing for them equal access to the treatment and care they want or need. The lecture has been updated to reflect developments in the United Kingdom since 2003.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed2006

["For the welfare of patients"--is this really the case?].

According to a decision by the German Federal Constitution Court (1 BvR 347/98), it is illegal to refuse compulsorily insured persons therapy if they suffering from a lifethreatening disease against which there is no effective therapy on the basis of current medical science. The chosen method of treatment should offer a not entirely remote chance of healing. What counts is the effect treatment has in each individual case. Serious objections to the the Court's criteria have been expressed by medical and legal experts, who contend that the Court has disregarded patients' protection against unknown risks and "quackery" as well as the incalculable financial effects on the community of insureds.

Civil Rights↗