[Prophylaxis and explanation (author's transl)].

W Spann

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 703137

[Prophylaxis and explanation (author's transl)].

W Spann

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The doctor-patient contract results from the logical actions. As well as treating the patient to the best of his knowledge and capability the doctor has the subsidary obligation of explanation. This must be done so that the patient can estimate risks himself. There is no legal basis for the extent of the explanation. Typical complications are to be mentioned--but not all possible complications. But "what is a typical complication" is controversial. The less urgent the treatment, the more comprehensive the information. The responsible doctor must do the explaining himself--he may delegate this only in the case of professional hindrance because of other urgent cases. The content of the explanation should be written and countersigned by the patient. For minors and legally incapacitated the parents or the responsible persons must give their consent.

Explore related subjects

Germany, West Health Education Informed Consent Legislation, Medical Physician-Patient Relations Preventive Medicine Risk English Abstract Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

W Spann. 1978. [Prophylaxis and explanation (author's transl)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/703137/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

["Keine Angst vor Psychiatern." Psychiatry, critics of psychiatry and the public in the Federal Republic of Germany 1960-1980].

Whenever psychiatry became object of public interest it was object of criticism. Since psychiatry has been established as a medical discipline in the beginning of the 19th century, the diagnostic, therapeutic and juridical practices have been subjected to fundamental attacks. Conversely psychiatrists periodically complained about misconception in the public and press of the mentally ill, their medical treatment and the psychiatrists themselves. In their opinion the general public ignored psychiatric information and, therefore, impeded any innovation. Medical knowledge, however, appeared as a sustained means to overcome the "latent terror of colloquial language" and to improve the social status of the mentally ill. The text focuses on the discussion among West-German social-psychiatrists from 1960 to 1980 and the conception of the public as revealed in their statements. Using Thomas Gieryn's concept of professional "boundary work" it looks more closely at two controversies which attracted public as well as professional attention (and caused their irritation) in the 1970s, i.e. Frank Fischers's book "Irrenhäuser. Kranke klagen an" (1969) and the "Frankfurter Psychiatriestreit 1976".

Germany, West↗

PubMed2003

[Solidarity and financing in the statutory health insurance system sin West Germany during the 1960s and 1970s].

Until the early seventies escalating costs in the health care sector were accepted as being a necessary consequence of social progress. However, this view has since begun to shift. Due to the recession in the mid-seventies, mounting health expenditures now loomed as a threat to the economy. Rather than social progress, the issue now was measures to curb the rising costs and increase-insurance revenues. Rising health care contributions initiated by the government coalition of Social Democrats and the Liberal Party marked this change of perspective in health policy that led to restraints in the principle of solidarity within the statutory health insurance system and, as a result, to a renewed privatisation of health expenditures. Since then patients who had health insurance were obliged to pay a larger share of their health expenses.

Germany, West↗

PubMed1997

[Questions from a medico-legal viewpoint on the planned law dealing with removal and transfer of organs (transplantation law) in West Germany].

Within the framework of the planned law concerning the removal and transfer of organs (transplantation law) in the Federal Republic of Germany, and taking as a basis the draft of a prototype law by the federal states dated February 1st 1994 and the draft bill of the states of Bremen and Hessen dated June 30th 1994, the speech addresses itself primarily to the question of whether, when no consent of the decreased can be identified, and when the next-of-kin have been informed by the doctor in attendance and given an appropriate time-limit, the next-of-kin in order of succession or any close relative can object to organ removal for the purpose of transplant surgery. Because of the highly personal nature of the postmortal personal rights transferred to the next-of-kin as well as their custodial rights, and with regard to the particularly sensitive nature of this decision, it is suggested that the next-of-kin be informed not only of their right of refusal but also-in view of their responsibility toward other relatives-be instructed on the meaning, substance and legal consequences of such a refusal. It is furthermore suggested that sufficient organs could be obtained by organisational measures such as requests to driving licence applicants, which would lead to a higher preparedness to donate organs, while, at the same time, sparing the next-of-kin unnecessary emotional pain. From a medical point of view, it should be recognised that the complete and irreversible loss of all brain functions, in spite of artificially maintained heart and circulatory functions, is a sure sign of death. In closing, it is pointed out that a change to the currently valid [symbol: see text] 168 StGB would mean that a violation of the right of refusal could lead to criminal prosecution.

Germany, West↗