ReviewDer Nervenarzt2019
[Impact of the Zeitgeist and human rights on psychiatric actions].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Benefits and risks of psychiatric actions and the patient's right of self-determination].Der Nervenarzt · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The idea of human rights developed during the era of the Enlightenment. This idea has been publicly discussed since the French Revolution of 1789 and its specification has been demanded politically. Important steps in this process were the General Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 and the CRPD from 2006, which was especially relevant for psychiatric actions. Meanwhile, the idea of human rights has influenced the legislation in many countries and has thus become normatively binding, e. g. in the Basic Law of Germany, in the regulations for patient care and in the professional rules for physicians. AIM AND QUESTIONS: To sensitize for reflection on one's own actions and to gain a critical distance from the general overall opinion. Then not only the global validity of the CRPD is frequently violated, as in crisis regions but also in the everyday routine when, for example, the workload prevents psychiatric personnel from taking time for essential conversations with psychiatric patients in order to support their self-determination. MATERIAL AND
methodsThese aspects are illustrated and explained with the aid of multifarious examples from the relevant literature and from own experience. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Human rights are a regulative idea that provide a framework and direction for psychiatric actions; however, as an idea they compete with other ideas that try to control the trends of the day (the Zeitgeist) that determine daily practice. Not only the suppression of human rights from public consciousness, e. g. with the eugenics in the first third of the previous century but also their absolutization and poor implementation, as in the Italian psychiatry reform of 1978, damage psychiatric patients. Therefore, it appears necessary to sensitize psychiatrists to reflect on the Zeitgeist and its influence on their own actions and to recognize that their own opinions and actions can also influence the Zeitgeist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31073674What 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.