The Prison Health Service Reform in UK and Its Implication for Korean Correctional Healthcare

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-57
Author(s):  
Lee Hwa-Seon ◽  
◽  
Lee So-young
BMJ ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 302 (6767) ◽  
pp. 52-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Cooper ◽  
P Dening-Smitherman ◽  
D Doherly ◽  
P Hynes ◽  
W Oldman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

BMJ ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 313 (7065) ◽  
pp. 1099-1099 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wise
Keyword(s):  

1994 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Tomaševski

AbstractComparative prison health is marked by three paradoxes: while problems are similar, responses vary a great deal; the image of the prison population as young, male and healthy is contrasted against the excessive use of health services; prison health service is criticised if standards are worse, but also if they seem better than outside prison. This text highlights current controversies in prison health, pointing to some of the main health problems in prison and outlining the pattern of responses in individual European countries, and also at the European and global level. Because many prison health issues are controversial, and these controversies are reflected in law, examples are used instead of a comparative overview. The interplay between three sources of guidance, namely law enforcement, health and human rights, has marked the recent process of change from prison into prisoners' health law, which has been based on the acceptance of equivalence as the ultimate goal. This has made a substantial change in the very approach to regulating prison health - rather than part of the penitentiary, prison health is increasingly seen as part of the health system. The acceptance of equivalence has had profound consequences for both prisoners and health professionals working in prison. The rights of patients-prisoners are not yet fully recognized, nor is their access to health care guaranteed similarly to patients at liberty, but the process of effective recognition is progressing rapidly. The health personnel in many countries retains its dual - and often conflicting - role of prison and prisoners' health service. Legislative changes have, in some countries, separated health from penitentiary law, and subsumed prison health under the general health law. Even where this has not been accomplished, the utilization of professional and ethical standards, and of human rights procedures, have contributed to their enhanced professional independence.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Leslie Simpson ◽  
Jill Guthrie ◽  
Tony Butler

Purpose Given that prisoners have significant health needs across most areas, the paucity of prisoner health research, and the difficulties involved in the conduct of research in this setting, there is a need to develop research priorities that align with key stakeholder groups. One such group are those responsible for health service provision in prisons – prison health service directors. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Prison health service directors in each Australian state and territory were invited to participate in a national (deliberative) roundtable where the consensus building nominal group technique was utilized. This involved the identification of research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research with prisoners, and ranking research priorities. A thematic analysis was conducted on organizational issues. Findings In total, 13 participants attended the roundtable. Participants identified 28 research priorities and 12 organizational issues. Top ranked research priorities were mental health, cognitive and intellectual disability, post-release health maintenance, ageing prisoners, chronic health conditions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Themes identified from the organizational issues included prisoner access to research participation, health and research literacy of custodial staff, and institutional protectionism in response to research that may discover negative information about the custodial setting. Research limitations/implications These findings should inform future efforts to improve research infrastructures to undertake research to improve the health of people in Australian prisons, and help to align researchers’ efforts with those of a key organizational stakeholder. Originality/value This is the first paper to determine the research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research in prisons of prison health service directors.


2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 462-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Birmingham

Until recently the provision of health care within prisons was the sole responsibility of the prison service. The Prison Health Service (formerly known as the Prison Medical Service) is the oldest civilian medical service in Britain. In addition to being much older than the NHS the Prison Health Service is much smaller, less well developed and less well resourced. Prison health care was coordinated by the Directorate of Health Care at the Home Office; the Department of Health and the NHS had no direct input. As a result, prisoners were afforded a standard of health care well below that provided by the NHS, and without radical reform there was little prospect of improvement. However, in recent years things have begun to change and last year collaboration between the prison service and the NHS resulted in the creation of a partnership between these two organisations (Joint Prison Service and NHS Executive Working Group, 1999). Although the intention is to improve health care standards for prisoners, the formal nature of this partnership also has the effect of making the NHS more directly responsible for health care in prisons.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rogan

Purpose Correctional healthcare should promote the protection of human rights. The purpose of this paper is to bring a discussion of human rights into debates on how such policy should be best organized. Design/methodology/approach The paper achieves its aim by providing an analysis of European prison law and policy in the area of prison health, through assessing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as policies created by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Findings The paper describes the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the topics of access to healthcare, ill health and release from prison, mental illness in prison, and the duty to provide rehabilitative programming for those seeking to reduce their level of “risk.” It also argues that human rights law can be a source of practical reform, and that legal frameworks have much to offer healthcare leaders seeking to uphold the dignity of those in their care. Originality/value This paper will provide a rare example of the engagement of human rights law with correctional health policy. It provides practical recommendations arising out of an analysis of European human rights law in the area of prisons.


2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Power-deFur

Abstract School speech-language pathologists and districts frequently need guidance regarding how the legal provisions of special education affect the needs of children with dysphagia. This article reviews key principles of special education that guide eligibility determination and provision of services to all children. In the eligibility process, the school team would determine if the child's disability has an adverse effect on his/her education program and if the child needed special education (specially designed instruction) and related services. Dysphagia services would be considered a related service, a health service needed for the child to benefit from specially designed instruction. The article concludes with recommendations for practice that stem from a review of due process hearings and court cases for children with disabilities that include swallowing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document