• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

第47条——侵犯还是保护个人自由?对格里夫斯的简短回应。

Section 47--assault on or protection of the freedom of the individual? A short response to Greaves.

作者信息

Gray J A

机构信息

Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):195, 204. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.195.

DOI:10.1136/jme.17.4.195
PMID:1787519
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1376055/
Abstract

Section 47 of the 1948 National Assistance Act allows incompetent people, usually old people, to be removed from their homes. It can be considered as a repressive tool, designed to infringe personal liberty, but in this article it is argued that it can also be considered as being legislation which governs and controls professional practice and protects the old person from public prejudice.

摘要

1948年《国家援助法》第47条允许将无行为能力的人,通常是老年人,从他们家中带走。它可被视为一种压制性工具,旨在侵犯个人自由,但在本文中,有人认为它也可被视为一项管理和控制专业行为的立法,并保护老年人免受公众偏见的影响。

相似文献

1
Section 47--assault on or protection of the freedom of the individual? A short response to Greaves.第47条——侵犯还是保护个人自由?对格里夫斯的简短回应。
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):195, 204. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.195.
2
Can compulsory removal ever be justified for adults who are mentally competent?对于精神健全的成年人,强制移送是否有正当理由?
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):189-94. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.189.
3
Compulsory removal of competent adults from their homes.
Br J Nurs. 1997;6(11):650-3. doi: 10.12968/bjon.1997.6.11.650.
4
Frontiers in care: a case of compulsory treatment in AIDS dementia. Case study and commentaries.
J Med Ethics. 2000 Feb;26(1):61-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.1.61.
5
Legal aspects of dementia.
Lancet. 1997 May 17;349(9063):1482. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63773-7.
6
An Orwellian scenario: court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy.一种奥威尔式的情景:法庭下令的剖宫产与女性自主权。
Nurs Ethics. 1999 Nov;6(6):494-505. doi: 10.1177/096973309900600605.
7
Ulysses and the psychiatrists: a legal and policy analysis of the voluntary commitment contract.尤利西斯与精神科医生:自愿住院合同的法律与政策分析
Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev. 1982 Winter;16(3):777-854.
8
Social work and the right of psychiatric patients to refuse medication: a family advocate's response.
Soc Work. 1993 Jan;38(1):107-12.
9
Competence to refuse medical treatment: autonomy vs. paternalism.拒绝医疗的行为能力:自主与家长主义
Univ Toledo Law Rev. 1984 Winter;15(2):561-96.
10
District nurses' crucial role in identifying unlawful deprivation of liberty.社区护士在识别非法剥夺自由方面的关键作用。
Br J Community Nurs. 2014 May;19(5):239-40, 242-3. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.5.239.

引用本文的文献

1
The ethics of compulsory removal under section 47 of the 1948 National Assistance Act.1948年《国家援助法》第47条规定下强制迁移的伦理问题。
J Med Ethics. 1998 Feb;24(1):38-43. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.1.38.

本文引用的文献

1
Can compulsory removal ever be justified for adults who are mentally competent?对于精神健全的成年人,强制移送是否有正当理由?
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):189-94. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.189.