ArticleClujul medical (1957)2016
The ethics of the relation between the convicted patient and the physician.
Article in Clujul medical (1957), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimApproaching the convicted patient is a topical issue in terms of alignment with EU provisions and recommendations, more so in the context of year by year increase in the number of convicts and consequently, prison patients. The prison patient exhibits increased vulnerability in regard to the rest of the convicts due to his/her medical status overlapping personality changes induced, while coping with a new environment. This represents a challenge for the physicians involved in the expertise process, which must act objectively within the limits and by the principles of professional ethics, while confronting a patient influenced by the prison environment.
methodsWe studied the existing legal and ethical framework concerning the expertise in view of sentence postponement/interruption on medical grounds and made a comparison between the theoretical information available and the "real life" situations encountered in our experience at the Institute of Legal Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Following this step we tried to establish some principles needed to optimize health care in the penitentiary system by detecting and sanctioning situations of deceptive behavior, doubled or not by simulation and over-simulation.
resultsConvicts present pathologies documented in medical records, but accuse new symptoms that could suggest a new pathological condition. During the expertise, convicted patients emphasize their symptoms and/or claim new symptoms unrelated to their documented medical condition. Convicts submit repeated requests for which treatment solutions within the NAP healthcare system had been already formulated.
conclusionThe patient must be properly informed about the steps to be taken and duration expected in performing a legal medicine expertise in pursuit of sentence postponement or interruption for the treatment of a medical condition that cannot be properly addressed within the NAP sanitary system. Information should come from authorized sources. Efforts to determine unauthorized sources (mainly "experienced" detainees with records of unsubstantiated demands) are surely beneficial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.