Sammet Kai
University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Department of History and Ethics of Medicine, Martinistr. 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Sep;33(9):534-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018341.
The increase in life expectancy in developed countries has lead to an increase in the number of elderly people cared for in nursing homes. Given the physical frailty and deterioration of mental capacities in many of these residents, questions arise as to their autonomy and to their protection from harm. In 2005, one of the highest German courts, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) issued a seminal judgement that dealt with the obligations of nursing homes and with the preserving of autonomy and privacy in nursing home residents. An elderly woman had sustained a fracture of the neck of the femur during a fall. The health insurance company held that the nursing home had breached its obligations to protect her from falling and sued the home for the hospital costs of her treatment. However, the BGH maintained that the case of the health insurance was not justified. It held that obligations of nursing homes have to be limited to normal arrangements within reasonable financial and personal effort, and that the autonomy of residents had to be protected from unnecessary interference. Permanent control or even restraining measures to reduce each risk would deprive the patient fully of her autonomy, and must therefore be hindered. Other judgments of other courts have emphasised the "protectionist" approach. The article deals with these different approaches and comments on both rationales. It will be shown that both approaches must be differentiated to establish fully autonomy and protection for nursing home residents.
发达国家预期寿命的增加导致了养老院中接受照料的老年人数量增多。鉴于这些居民中许多人身体虚弱且心智能力衰退,他们的自主性以及免受伤害的保护问题便随之而来。2005年,德国最高法院之一,联邦法院(BGH)发布了一项具有开创性的判决,该判决涉及养老院的义务以及养老院居民自主性和隐私的保护。一名老年妇女在摔倒时股骨颈骨折。健康保险公司认为养老院违反了保护她防止摔倒的义务,并起诉该养老院要求赔偿她的治疗费用。然而,联邦法院认为健康保险公司的诉讼理由不成立。它认为养老院的义务必须限于在合理的财务和人力范围内的正常安排,并且居民的自主性必须受到保护以免遭不必要的干涉。为降低每项风险而进行的长期监控甚至约束措施会使患者完全丧失自主性,因此必须予以阻止。其他法院的其他判决强调了“保护主义”方法。本文论述了这些不同的方法并对两种基本原理进行了评论。将表明必须区分这两种方法,以充分确立养老院居民的自主性和保护措施。