Author
Mega, Ertunç
Publication Date
2018
Publication Place
-
Turkish Neurosurgery Association
Subject
Patient rights, Patient rights regulation, Democracy, Human rights, Parties, Stakeholders
Type
Book
Language
Turkish
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Özyeğin University
Record ID
612ff5b9-2bd7-4a12-8aaa-f60f9e6e11e4
Date
2018
Sample Text
The welfare of each individual as a privileged and important element of society, which is the main goal in democracies, can only be established on the basis of human rights. Whether we examine it within the framework of democracy, look at it from the perspective of human rights, or combine our description as a framed window, the first concrete situation we see when we look at it will be the importance of the right to life and the obligation to observe it. Perhaps, while the legal world holds states responsible for the protection of the right to life, it has always tended to make physicians the subject of the issue, interpreting the right to life from the abstract framework we have just mentioned. Perhaps, against the term patient rights, which many of us think is an expression limited to its popular meaning, "Why do you want less when I have more ethically?" The silent scream in the form originates from here.
The complex pattern covered by studies on patient rights is simple enough that a single discipline or groups with the same knowledge can work on it and produce theories; It is not such an unimportant issue that repetitive works or articles can be published by offering solutions. Studying a subject such as human rights or patients' rights, which is extremely difficult to interpret and whose function is of vital importance, requires a scientific method again and again, as well as multi-disciplinarity. The scientific method required for writing is equally important and essential for the reader. A text written with the scientific method and, in a way, forcing the reader to read scientifically, may simply express a pre-accepted judgment or create a new perspective with the different interpretation options it produces, depending on the scientific writing approach chosen.
Patient rights, which are a subset of human rights, are the subject of which branch of science? Is it a legal entity with its sanctions? Is it a medical contract in terms of its parties? Is it an ethical framing in terms of its purpose? Is it a concept that deals with the relationships between stakeholders and the results arising from these relationships? Our opinion is that patient rights deserve the last definition, and the fact that this definition is the most general can be put forward as a simple justification. In our opinion, based on the approach mentioned, patient rights are also the subject of sociology.
In our opinion, the most important function of defining the parties and stakeholders regarding patient rights is to identify the individuals and institutions of the complex pattern [correspondents, investigators, interlocutors, informers, auditors, mutasarrifs, miscreants, intervenors, institutions, inspectors, taxpayers, representatives, signatories, contestants, responsible persons, undersecretaries, to emphasize its observers, complainants, customers, contractors, attackers, clients]. The first parties and stakeholders that come to mind are, in alphabetical order, [Constitutional Court, European Court of Human Rights, Prime Ministry, Presidency, Council of State, Patient, Patient Rights Association, Patient Rights Coordinator, Patient Rights Boards, Administrative Health Officer, Public Case Judge, Public Institutional Professional Organizations, Law Enforcement Forces, Media, Private Law Case Judge, Psychologist, Ministry of Health, Health Care Personnel, Union, Social Service. Experts, Party Lawyers, Consumer Association, Consumer Court, Citizen, Supreme Court, Academic Authors on Patient Rights can be expressed as 'Deontologists, Lawyers, Healthcare Professionals, Sociologists, Medical Ethicists, Medical Historians', Those who have to write and say on Patient Rights can be expressed as 'Healthcare Professionals, Legal Professionals, Cartoonists, Journalists, Social Media Users'...].
The nineteen seventies are considered a period of general awakening in the context of patients' search for rights, with the impact of health law being defined as a separate discipline in some countries. With the influence of the political changes experienced especially in the Central European countries in the early nineties, the work of civil society in general and patient organizations as a special stakeholder created a political and social agenda.
As we approach the new millennium, studies have been initiated in all countries of the world to normalize patient rights, especially with the accelerating effect of the Bali Declaration. In the USA, which we often point to as a source of facts and data in compensating damages arising from faulty medical practices with a certain amount of money, the Bipartisan Bill on the Protection of Patients was submitted to the Senate for approval in 2001, after a five-year study, but has not yet been approved. The Canadian Medical Association, at a time when legal studies on patient rights began under the influence of the USA, explained the draft studies as follows: "With the passage of the regulations in this way, insurance companies, not physicians, will decide on the tests to be done, consultations or referrals and the treatment to be planned." He criticized it with the statement: There is no legal regulation regarding patient rights in Canada, except for the provinces of Québec and Alberta. Based on the social affiliation of the province of Québec to the European continent, when we look at the European Union's regulations on patient rights, we see that the mapping report study on patient rights of the European Union was completed in 2016. Universal caution in the transformation of the concept of patient rights into practice has not been shown in our local legal regulations regarding patient rights.
Practices and/or regulations regarding patient rights are not issues that can be kept waiting. However, anxiety about not keeping you waiting should not result in imprudence and haste. In 1998, while updating the Medical Deontology Regulation could be an approach; We think that the content, conceptual integrity and literal aspects of the Regulation, which was included in our legislation before it was ready, should be discussed at an academic level whether it causes new problems in the provision of health services.
Patients' rights are human rights. Defining the concept of patient rights correctly requires multi-disciplinarity. It is obvious that the solution to an issue that involves complex elements such as patient rights cannot be through non-acceptance and friction. We believe that the issue will be resolved fairly with the works and articles created by healthcare professionals on the subject. The number of nearly thirty-five thousand active peer-reviewed academic journals and the number of two and a half million articles accepted annually in the 2014 Report of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers are motivating for the issue of patient rights to be discussed in an academic environment.
We hope and believe that we have colleagues who aim to move away from superficial conflicts about patient rights and discuss the issue on a scientific platform. The first concrete situation that should be taken into consideration for this purpose is that the number of articles published in a year reduces readability and repetitive articles do not reach the target. Our second and more important determination is that we should not forget that the stakeholders with whom we can produce the solution are from social sciences background and that their scientific approach, scientific writing, scientific reading methods and habits are different from ours.
Editör
Kalkan, E.
