Search

Copyright of Archiv für Kriminologie is the property of Schmidt-Roemhild Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archiv für Kriminologie is the property of Schmidt-Roemhild Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archiv für Kriminologie is the property of Schmidt-Roemhild Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archiv für Kriminologie is the property of Schmidt-Roemhild Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Isolated coronary anomalies are rare abnormalities that can be divided into benign and malignant forms. Malignant coronary artery abnormalities generally present already during infancy or early childhood by causing symptoms or sudden death. Benign abnormalities often remain asymptomatic because they are hemodynamically irrelevant. Among the 12,985 autopsies performed at the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University of Frankfurt (Germany) between 1995 and 2013, there were eight cases (0.062%) with isolated coronary artery abnormalities. Five of these cases (0.039%) could be included in our retrospective study. These involved one deceased female and four deceased male subjects, aged between 2 and 57 years. In three of these cases (aged 6, 9, and 11 years old), the coronary anomaly was classified as malignant and was recorded as the cause of death. Benign isolated coronary anomalies are often incidental findings during autopsies. However, in one of the cases in our study, coronary sclerosis in precisely the anomalous vessel was found to be the origin of a fatal myocardial infarction. Malignant isolated coronary artery anomalies attain medicolegal significance when they remain undetected despite advanced early detection protocols and cause sudden death in childhood.

The article deals with the new regulations in the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB), which came into effect in Germany as the Patient Rights Act (PatRG) on the 2/26/2013. In the third part, the burden of proof in liability questions (and 630h BGB) are discussed and critically analysed. In the discussion and a final resume points of criticism of the new law are pointed out.

The article deals with the new regulations in the German Civil Code (BGB) which came into effect in Germany on 26 Feb 2013 as the Patient Rights Act (PatRG). In the second part, the consent of the patient (Section 630d Civil Code), the physician's duties to inform the patient (Section 630e Civil Code), the documentation of treatment (Section 630f Civil Code), and the right of access to the patient file (Section 630g Civil Code) are discussed and critically analysed.

The article deals with the new regulations in the German Civil Code (BGB) which came into effect in Germany on 26 Feb 2013 as the Patient Rights Act (PatRG). In Part I, the legislative procedure, the treatment contract and the contracting parties (Section 630a Civil Code), the applicable regulations (Section 630b Civil Code) and the obligations to cooperate and inform (Section 630c Civil Code) are discussed and critically analysed.

In the last few years, male circumcision has become the subject of controversial discussion. On the one hand, medical and hygienic arguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy are claimed by those supporting male circumcision. On the other hand, the justification of this practice also has to be critically scrutinized just as the question whether the parents have the right to consent to the operation. Today, opinions range from those who claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice to those who consider circumcision of minors unable to give their consent as bodily injury subject to punishment. In contrast to female genital mutilation, most positions do not postulate that circumcision violates morality. If the person concerned is able to give his consent, freedom of religion may also justify circumcision after weighing its pros and cons as well as its risks and potential side effects.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is considered to be against the law and against morality not only in Western countries, although a woman of age and able to consent may sometimes think differently. The procedure may have serious physical and emotional consequences for the girl or woman. Nevertheless there are attempts to justify the procedure with medical and hygienic pseudoarguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy. Outside the Western world, some people claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice. In Germany, parents can lose the right to determine the residence of their daughter, if she is faced with the risk of genital mutilation in order to prevent that the child or girl is taken to her home country. Genital mutilation as a gender-specific threat is recognized as a reason to grant asylum or prevent deportation. Proposals to make genital mutilation a separate punishable offence are presently discussed by the legislator.