No abstract

It has been suggested that user involvement in heath care leads to improved services. The aim of the study was to explore attitudes towards user involvement of staff employed in Norwegian Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Most of the investigated mental health service staff expressed the opinion that users should be involved in the planning of their own treatment and generally have a positive attitude towards user involvement. Skepticism was related to some aspects of involvement and does not contradict their generally positive attitude towards user involvement.

This article considers the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for valid advance decisions. The Act recognizes that an adult with capacity may refuse treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, in advance of losing capacity. If that advance decision is valid and applicable, it will bind health-care professionals, taking effect as if the patient had contemporaneously refused the treatment. However, in cases where the advance decision does not relate to treatment for a progressive disease, it will be extremely difficult for the patient to meet the dual specificity requirement - specifying the treatment to be refused and the circumstances in which that refusal should operate. Moreover, while a patient may explicitly revoke an advance decision while she retains the capacity to do so, the continuing validity of an advance decision may be called into question by the patient implicitly revoking her advance refusal or by a change of circumstance. This article concludes that the key to enabling patients to exercise precedent autonomy will be full and frank discussion of the scope and intentions underlying advance decisions between patients and their health-care professionals.

No abstract

Time plays a fundamental role in abortion regulation. In this article, we compare the regulatory frameworks in England and Wales and the Netherlands as examples of the centrality accorded to viability in the determination of the parameters of non-criminal abortion, demonstrating that the use of viability as a threshold renders the law uncertain. We assess the role played by the concept of viability, analysing its impact upon the continued criminalization of abortion and categorization of abortion as a medical matter, rather than a reproductive choice. We conclude that viability is misconceived in its application to abortion and that neonatal viability (relating to treatment of the premature infant) and fetal viability (related to the capacity to survive birth) must be distinguished to better reflect the social context within which the law and practice of abortion operate. We show how viability thresholds endanger pregnant people.