• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of law and psychiatry >Rights, laws and tensions: A comparative analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation
【24h】

Rights, laws and tensions: A comparative analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation

机译：权利，法律和紧张局势：对残疾人权利公约的比较分析和担任心理健康，人权和立法的世卫组织资源书

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Background Good mental health legislation is essential for ensuring high quality mental health care and protecting human rights. Many countries are attempting to bring mental health legislation in line with the UN — Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UN-CRPD). The UN-CRPD requires policy-makers to rethink the ‘medical model’ of mental illness and existing laws. It also challenges WHO guidelines on drafting mental health law, described in the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation (WHO-RB). Aims This study examines the relationship between the UN-CRPD and the WHO-RB. Methods It compares the documents, highlighting similarities and identifying areas of disagreement. The WHO-RB contains a checklist of human rights standards it recommends are met at national level. This study analyses each component on this checklist and identifies the relevant sections in the UN-CRPD that pertain to each. Results Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB address more than just acute exacerbations of illness, providing guidelines on, inter alia, treatment, education, occupation and housing. They are patient-centred and strongly influenced by social rights. The UN-CRPD, however, gives just superficial consideration to the management of acute illness, forensic and risk issues, and does little to identify the role of family and carers. Conclusion The UN-CRPD has evolved from disability research and strong advocacy organisations. Careful consideration is needed to enable it to address the specific needs encountered in mental illness. Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB highlight common tensions that must be resolved by clinicians, and provide some guidance for stakeholders who commonly need to observe one principle at the expense of another.
机译：摘要背景良好的心理健康立法对于确保高质量的心理保健和保护人权至关重要。许多国家正在试图符合“联合国残疾人权利（UN-CRPD）的权利”妥善核心卫生立法。联合国民党要求政策制定者重新思考精神疾病和现有法律的“医学模式”。它还挑战了凡举办精神卫生法的指导方针，在智力，人权和立法（WHO-RB）上描述了世界卫生组织资源书。目的本研究探讨了联合国CRPD和WHO-RB之间的关系。方法对文件进行了比较，突出显示异同和识别分歧领域。 WHO-RB包含其建议在国家一级达到的人权标准清单。本研究分析了本清单上的每个组成部分，并识别与每个人有关的UN-CRPD中的相关部分。结果联合国CRPD和WHO-RB既不只是急性疾病的急性恶化，也可以提供指南，尤其是治疗，教育，占领和住房。它们是患者以患者为中心的，受到社会权利的强烈影响。然而，联合国联合国民党对急性疾病，法医和风险问题的管理施加了肤浅的考虑，并且对家庭和照顾者的作用几乎没有。结论联合国联合国联合国组织已从残疾研究和强大的宣传组织中发展。需要仔细考虑，使其能够解决精神疾病遇到的特定需求。 UN-CRPD和WHO-RB都突出了临床医生必须解决的常见紧张局域网，并为利益攸关方提供一些指导，他们通常需要以牺牲另一个原则遵守一个原则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号