Search

Background: With reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), a fundamental change in psychiatric care in Germany was proposed in 2019 by Zinkler and von Peter, supported by a legal perspective from Kammeier, which has since led to controversial debates. Essentially, the aim is not only to reduce coercion in psychiatry to a minimum, but also to fundamentally exclude it in a psychiatry that only provides care. The function as an agent of social control is to be returned from psychiatry to state institutions. Psychiatric hospitals will only admit patients with their consent; patients who refuse therapy will not be admitted regardless of their capacity for self-determination and will remain untreated or, if they have committed a criminal offence or threaten to commit a criminal offence, they will be taken into custody or imprisoned in accordance with the legal regulations applicable to all people. There they will receive psychiatric care if they so wish. Aim of the paper: The paper outlines the background of this concept, including international sources, traces the discussion in German specialist literature and takes a critical look at it. Results: The criticism is primarily directed against the fact that responsibility for a relevant proportion of psychiatric patients would be handed over to the police and judiciary and that, as a result, two realities of care would be established that would considerably differ in terms of quality. Conclusion: Arguments are put forward in favor of retaining the function of social control and considerations are suggested as to how caring coercion can be largely minimized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: The Working Group on Ethics in Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine of the Austrian Society for Anesthesiology Resuscitation and Intensive Care Medicine (ÖGARI) already developed documentation tools for the adaption of therapeutic goals 10 years ago. Since then the practical implementation of Comfort Terminal Care in the daily routine in particular has raised numerous questions, which are discussed in this follow-up paper and answered in an evidence-based manner whenever possible. Results: The practical implementation of pain therapy and reduction of anxiety, stress and respiratory distress that are indicated in the context of Comfort Terminal Care are described in more detail. The measures that are not (or no longer) indicated, such as oxygen administration and ventilation as well as the administration of fluids and nutrition, are also commented on. Furthermore, recommendations are given regarding monitoring, (laboratory) findings and drug treatment and the importance of nursing actions in the context of Comfort Terminal Care is mentioned. Finally, the support for the next of kin and the procedure in the time after death are presented. Discussion: A change in treatment goals with a timely switch to Comfort Terminal Care enables good and humane care for seriously ill patients and their relatives at the end of life and the appreciation of their previous life with the possibility of positive experiences until the end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]