Bridgman A M
University of Manchester.
J Med Ethics. 2000 Oct;26(5):387-92. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.5.387.
The House of Lords in F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] considered the lawfulness of providing care and treatment for a mentally incapacitated adult. They did not, however, directly consider the use of restraint to enable the provision of care in the face of resistance from the patient. The law has since had good cause to give consideration to this important issue. This paper establishes the present law in the context of using restraint to deliver care. Although the legal principles established have derived from what might be considered to be "hard cases", life-and-death cases, they apply to all aspects of routine medical, dental and nursing care. Further, the paper considers the recent government proposals and the effect those proposals may have on the routine care of such patients.
上议院在“F诉西伯克郡卫生局”案[1989年]中审议了为无行为能力的成年人提供护理和治疗的合法性。然而，他们并未直接考虑在患者抗拒的情况下使用约束措施以提供护理。此后，法律有充分理由对这一重要问题进行考量。本文在使用约束措施提供护理的背景下确立现行法律。尽管所确立的法律原则源自可能被视为“疑难案件”、生死攸关的案件，但它们适用于日常医疗、牙科和护理的各个方面。此外，本文还考虑了政府近期的提议以及这些提议可能对这类患者的日常护理产生的影响。
