Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:1187-1189 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39387.393160.AD (published 14 November 2007)
Harald Schmidt, assistant director
1 Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London WC1B 3JS
hschmidt@nuffieldbioethics.org
We all have responsibility for our health, the health of others, and to the organisations that provide health care. But, as Harald Schmidt describes, specifying and formalising these duties can create ethical problems
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The BMA recently called for a charter setting out the responsibilities patients have within the National Health Service and what patients can expect from the NHS.1 The proposal raises questions about the scope, specificity, and status of such a charter. Should it be legally binding or simply set out aspirations? How many and what kind of responsibilities should be included? I examine how initiatives in Scotland, Germany, and the United States have dealt with these questions and look at the ethical tensions raised.
The BMAs discussion paper refers to patient responsibilities and a patient charter. But at its annual representative meeting 2007 delegates also resolved with an overwhelming majority the need for a charter that "focuses on the individuals responsibility both in health and illness" (motion 25). The focus on patient responsibilities is too narrow, and in the following I will therefore use the term health responsibilitiesto cover the obligation
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses