RESUMEN
The psychiatric law system was created with the sole purpose of protecting patients with mental illnesses, a vulnerable segment of the population. The laws regarding voluntary and non-voluntary admission of mental patients have been reformed in many European countries. After 1989, Romania starts to gradually benefit from a law system that meets the requirements of modern society. From this general context the Mental Health Law takes form, with the main purpose of ratifying the relationship between patient and psychiatrist. This system provides a new, more modern approach but also proves to have certain flaws. One of the most obvious is the aspect regarding the personal representative, which generates both ethical and professional conduit problems, difficult to manage from the standpoint of modern medicine. Minimizing the effects of such an error is possible by simply considering the small number of solutions suggested by the author in the end of this article.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Mentales , Salud Mental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Admisión del Paciente/legislación & jurisprudencia , Psiquiatría/legislación & jurisprudencia , Unión Europea , Humanos , Metáfora , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , RumaníaRESUMEN
UNLABELLED: Respecting fundamental ethics principles entails the process of obtaining an informed consent, which is a necessary requirement for offering good psychiatric medical care and conducting research studies on human subjects, who are regarded as the vulnerable population. Presently, in Romania, the informed consent regarding medical interventions is covered by the law of the patient's rights, Law 46/2003, chapter 3. The aim of this study is to evaluate the medical staff's perception of the need of the informed consent in the practice of psychiatric medical care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a quantitative, inquiry based study, with prospective evaluation, based on the responses of 217 medical staff members involved in treating patients with psychiatric disorders. The study unfolded between July 2012 and July 2013, and the questionnaires were answered by medical staff members (psychiatrists, general practitioners, other clinical specialists, psychologists) from Iasi, Botosani, Vaslui, Suceava counties. RESULTS: The age group distribution of the medical staff involved in the medical care shows statistically significant differences between the groups questioned (χ2 = 227.14; df = 5; p = 0.001). Concerning the answers recorded at question no. 2, regarding informing the psychiatric patient, and comparing the studied groups of medical staff, a majority of affirmative answers was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The medical staff members involved in the patient's treatment recognizes the necessity of a full informed consent when discussing about psychiatric medical care. In psychiatry, the variation of competence raises multiple ethics discussions.