Search results

This paper explores the health rights of prisoners as defined in international law, and the mechanisms that have been used to ensure the rights of persons in detention to realise the highest attainable standard of health. It examines this right as articulated within United Nations and regional human rights treaties, non‐binding or so‐called soft law instruments from international organisations and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies. It explores the use of economic, social and cultural rights mechanisms, and those within civil and political rights, as they engage the right to health of prisoners, and identifies the minimum legal obligations of governments in order to remain compliant with human rights norms as defined within the international case law. In addressing these issues, this article adopts a holistic approach to the definition of the highest attainable standard of health. This includes a consideration of adequate standards of general medical care, including preventative health and mental health services. It also examines the question of environmental health, and those poor conditions of detention that may exacerbate health decline, disease transmission, mental illness or death. The paper examines the approach to prison health of the United Nations human rights system and its various monitoring bodies, as well as the regional human rights systems in Europe, Africa and the Americas. Based upon this analysis, the paper draws conclusions on the current fulfilment of the right to health of prisoners on an international scale, and proposes expanded mechanisms under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment to monitor and promote the health rights of prisoners at the international and domestic levels.

We compare the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients and the developmentally disabled in the United States and demonstrate that there were two path-dependent processes with significant qualitative and quantitative differences, ultimately leading to better outcomes for developmentally disabled individuals.

Using secondary literature, we construct a sustained comparison of the two processes in terms of outcomes, timing, tempo, extent, funding, demographic composition, and investment in community services. We then reconstruct the strategies of de-stigmatization and framings of moral worth deployed in the two cases, analyzing their effects on deinstitutionalization in terms of conceptions of risk, rights, and care.

Deinstitutionalization began later for developmentally disabled individuals than for psychiatric patients, and was a more gradual, protracted process. It was not driven by fiscal conservatism, discharges, and the trans-institutionalization of the senile aged, as was deinstitutionalization for psychiatric patients, but primarily by the prevention of institutionalization of young children, and increased investment in infrastructure. Consequently, the deinstitutionalization of the developmentally disabled was far more thorough and successful. The process was shaped by the framing of the developmentally disabled as “forever children” by parents’ organizations that demanded a balance between autonomy, protection, and the provision of care. In contrast, the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients was shaped by their framing as autonomous citizens temporarily suffering from “mental health problems” that could be prevented, treated, and cured. This frame foregrounded the right to choose (and also refuse) treatment, while undervaluing the provision of care.

Legal standards that allow teens to make health care decisions, or any important decisions, must account for the contingency and variability of minors’ capacity. Traditional law denied minors’ legal authority to make any decisions, giving all power to parents. This rule goes too far; the Supreme Court has held that minors have constitutionally protected autonomy-based rights, and modern views about adolescence are inconsistent with the rule. The question is how and where to draw lines.

Legal standards are based on minors’ evolving maturity, policy favoring decisions that follow medical advice, and policy supporting parental authority. This paper uses four hard cases to show how these considerations factor into legal rules.

Injecting drug use is a global concern, with an estimated 16 million people who inject drugs (PWIDs) in over 148 countries. A number of Asian countries detain PWIDs for compulsory treatment. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The authors reviewed the literature on compulsory drug treatment in seven Asian countries.

The authors identified 1,269 closed settings which held over 600,000 drug users in eight countries. The average detainee was aged from 20 to 30 years and was predominantly male. HIV risk behaviour continued in detention in some countries. In most countries treatment comprised physical labour, military drills. Methadone maintenance treatment and antiretroviral therapy were rarely available. No data were located to show detention in a closed setting treated drug dependency. Issues of concern were; no due legal process for the detention of drug users, lack of evidence-based drug treatment, lack of HIV prevention and treatment, abusive conditions, forced labour and exercise, arbitrary exit procedures and very high relapse rates.

The review of compulsory treatment of drug users failed to find any evaluation of effective drug treatment for detainees. Instead serious breaches in human rights conditions were evident. Prominent international organisations have called for the compulsory treatment of drug users to cease.

Many countries are spending vast amounts of funding on ineffective treatments for drug users.

Funding should be directed to community-based drug treatments that have been shown to work.

This is the largest review of compulsory treatment of drug users to date.

The incarceration of transgender people is described as a “double punishment” based on lack of gender recognition and ability to gender affirm, and with their experiences and conditions in prison tantamount to torture. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the continued “double punishment” of incarcerated transgender people (in particular trans-women) and identify and describe breaches in human and gender rights and minimum standards of care.

There is limited global data on the numbers of incarcerated transgender people, an identified vulnerable prison group. There are inherent difficulties for prison authorities regarding placement, security aspects and management of transgender persons. While the concerns apply to all transgender prisoners, the current literature focusses mainly on transgender women and this commentary reflects this present bias. A socio-legal approach describes and evaluates international human rights’ conventions and human rights’ law, soft law instruments mandating non-discriminatory provisions in the prison setting and relevant European and domestic case law.

Transgender prisoners experience an amplification of trauma underpinned by lack of legal gender recognition, inability to gender-affirm, discrimination, transphobia, gender maltreatment and violence by other prisoners and prison staff. Despite obligations and recommendations in international human rights’ instruments and standard operating procedures at the prison level, very few countries are able to fully uphold the human rights of and meet the needs of transgender people in prison.

This study is important as it highlights the dearth of knowledge exploring human rights discourses and concerns related to the phenomenon of incarcerated transgender persons. It uniquely focusses on European and domestic law and illustrates the inherent tensions between human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity rights and security considerations regarding transgender issues in prisons. Rights assurances centre on the principles of equality, dignity, freedom of expression, dignified detention and the prohibition of inhumane treatment or punishment.

Ethical, legal and medical progress has been made in end‐of‐life care, addressing crucial issues in the application of principles to clinical cases. However, despite the progress, there are still unresolved issues concerning the scope and effectiveness of personal decision making and the proper use of last resort measures in terminal care. An analysis of the progress discloses both the advances and the problems still confronting patients and their families. From this perspective, one gains a better understanding of the reality of terminal care and areas that call for reform.

A historical analysis reveals the interrelation between moral and legal reasoning and their differences. It also discloses developments in the moral and legal realms that recognize rights of the patient with regard to treatment decisions. A critique of ethical and legal reasoning and medical practice pin‐points the salient problems.

There are still problems in the application of legal and ethical principles to specific cases. These problems are complicated by poor physician‐patient communication, the ineffective use of advance directives and the impact of the market economy on comprehensive palliative care. These call for reform to protect personal rights and dignity at the end of life.

A historical approach, too often lacking, promotes insight into the complexities of end‐of‐life care. An analysis flowing from such a perspective pin‐points not only the advances in ethical, legal and medical practice but also the flaws and inconsistencies that call for a more realistic approach in reasoning and practice.

This paper aims to identify human rights violations of patients during the early periods of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana by investigating the experiences of people on how health-care professionals discharged their responsibilities during the time in question.

Explanatory design of the mixed methods approach was adopted, with the intention of collecting both quantitative and qualitative data sequentially, and then integrating the results at the interpretation stage. The approach enriched the quality of data collected as it offered the advantage of shedding light on the primary motivations and reasons for attitudes and behaviours and helped to provide an in-depth understanding of how individuals interpret the happenings around them and their experiences. Thus, although some amount of quantitative method was used in the data collection, the core of this paper is based on the qualitative interpretations.

The study reveals that health-care professionals, especially those in the Tema Metropolis, undermined certain fundamental human rights of patients during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes failure to provide information to patients about treatment options and potential risks of medications; failure to seek the informed consent of patients before performing medical procedures; denial of access to medical files of patients for transfer; and inability or failure to provide medical ambulances services to patients on time.

Although many publications on human rights dimensions and health protective issues on COVID-19 pandemic are available on a global scale, still little information pertaining to experiences of individuals with health-care professionals during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Ghana through the lens of patient’s rights exists. This paper, therefore, fills an important gap in health-care management information, critical for policy decision-making processes regarding patient’s rights in times of pandemic control.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of healthcare offered by a Greek Public Psychiatric Clinic. Special attention is paid to the degree to which the Clinic promotes human rights, social inclusion, and autonomy.

The paper opted for an exploratory study using the open-ended approach of grounded theory, including 21 depth interviews with patients, staff members and patients’ relatives, documentation review and observation by an independent assessment team consisting of the author, a sociologist with mental disabilities, and a psychologist using the World Health Organization QualityRights tool kit which uses the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as its frame. The data complemented by a group discussion with employees in another Clinic of the same hospital.

The paper provides empirical insights about how the steps taken by the Psychiatric Clinic to address several of the themes drawn from the CRPD require either improvement or initiation to comply fully with the convention's themes, and how this compares unfavorably with the Urology Clinic.

Sample size and restriction of the data to only one mental health facility limit the generalizibility of the results. Staff who reported professional burnout and cuts in wages may have been be susceptible to recall bias due to current negative mood. Respondent patients may also have failed to disclose their true experiences due to fear of punishment.

The paper uses a new methodology and instrument to assess current practice in mental health facilities in relation to international human rights standards emanating from the CRPD as well as the degree of parity between mental health and general health services.

Health professionals are in an ethical dilemma. The patients should be assumed as competent. Involuntary treatment is a violation of human rights. Therefore incompetent patients should be protected. However, one cannot determine a patient's incompetency without testing him/her, which is a violation of the assumption of competency. Thus, we propose two different types of uses for competency tests. One is to measure the appropriateness of information disclosed,but with a poor test result the information should be repeated. Another is to measure the competency of the patients when making major decisions. A poor test result will be followed by the designation of a proxy so that incompetent patients can be protected.

The global spotlight is increasingly shone on the situation of women in the male-dominated prison environment. Africa has observed a 24% increase in its female prison population in the past decade. This year is the 10-year anniversary of the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2010.

Using a legal realist approach, this paper examines South Africa’s progress in adopting the Bangkok Rules. This paper documents the historical evolution of the penal system since colonial times, focused on the development of recognition, protection and promotion of human rights of prisoners and an assessment of incarcerated women’s situation over time.

The analysis of the human rights treaties, the non-binding international and regional human rights instruments, African court and domestic jurisprudence and extant academic and policy-based literature is cognizant of the evolutionary nature of racial socio-political dimensions in South Africa, and the indeterminate nature of application of historical/existing domestic laws, policies and standards of care when evaluated against the rule of law.

To date, there has been no legal realist assessment of the situation of women in South Africa’s prisons. This paper incorporates race and gendered intersectionality and move beyond hetero-normative ideologies of incarcerated women and the prohibition of discrimination in South African rights assurance. The authors acknowledge State policy-making processes, and they argue for substantive equality of all women deprived of their liberty in South Africa.