CONCEPT OF PATIENT’S ADVANCE EXPRESSED WILL

Author(s):  
Dagnija Volodjko

The patient may be found in a situation where he can no longer make decisions because of an accident or illness. It is considered that the decision on treatment admit in the best interests of the patient, but without certain written instructions it is almost impossible. The patient's advance expressed will is the way in which any person can express the exact wishes of treatment for particular situations at a time when patient can’t made the decision. There is a need to respect to the principle of self-determination, where the patient has the right to know all the information about his state of health and he can determine in what situations he agrees or prohibits certain medical examinations, treatments or interventions. In Latvia, the idea of the patient's advance expressed will has been not many research and not implemented, so the work gives an insight into the concept and content of the patient's advance expressed will.

Worldview ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 6-9
Author(s):  
William J. Barnds

The idealists and crusaders of every age and era develop certain underlying attitudes and values which, while connected with the specific goals they struggle to attain, are clearly distinct from them. Often these attitudes and values grow out of their effort to obtain more limited and specific goals. However, many of the participants in today's turmoil, and particularly the younger ones, seem to have little in the way of a general program — though they often protest against specific acts or situations — but instead proclaim that unless the nation and the world adopt a new set of values no particular set of reforms will leave a lasting imprint.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-176
Author(s):  
Boitumelo Mmusinyane

The legitimacy presumption poses a threat to the equality of parties in a marriage/partnership in today’s constitutional society. The approach adopted by courts in paternity disputes reveals an ongoing inequality in marriages/partnerships. The marriage/partnership is being used by courts to prevent a husband/partner from introducing a paternity claim on the assumption that doing so is not in the best interests of the child. Courts should be cautious in using children as a mechanism for preventing a husband/partner from determining their biological relationship. The child’s best interests can only be advanced if children know his biological identity. Husband/partner must have the right to know their biological relationship to their wives/partner’s children. A husbands/partners’ right to assert his paternity claims, on a balance of probabilities and on an equal basis is an inherent right to dignity.


2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Epstein

An interlocking legislative complex is proposed for the control of carcinogenic and other adverse impacts of established run-away petrochemical and radionuclear technologies, with particular reference to winning the losing war against cancer. These proposals are also applicable to the poorly recognized, potentially adverse public health and environmental hazards of emerging technologies, particularly genetically engineered food production. The proposals embody fundamental democratic rights—the right to know and balanced and transparent decision making—the “Precautionary Principle,” reduction in the use of toxics, incentives for the development of safe industrial technologies, and criminal sanctions for suppression or manipulation of information.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable


1926 ◽  
Vol 104 (23) ◽  
pp. 595-596
Author(s):  
A. W. Burr

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document