Schopp Robert F
Law/Psychology Program, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2009 Sep-Oct;27(5):833-55. doi: 10.1002/bsl.888.
In Panetti v. Quarterman, three professional associations advocated commutation of capital sentences for offenders who are incompetent to face execution. Some judicial opinions deny that convicted offenders have any protected interest in avoiding a legally imposed sentence, and other opinions have found that the Eighth Amendment requires treatment for prisoners with serious mental health needs. This article examines some circumstances in which health care providers in the context of criminal punishment encounter apparent conflicts among the treatment interests of the individuals, the comprehensive interests of these individuals, legally protected interests, and the public interest. This analysis pursues clarification of these interests and of potential tensions among legal and professional obligations of health care providers. This article does not provide comprehensive resolution of this tension. Rather, it is intended to promote rigorous ongoing inquiry by clarifying the relevant interests at stake and the responsibilities of various participants in the complex interaction of health care and corrections.
在帕内蒂诉夸特曼案中，三个专业协会主张对无能力面对死刑执行的罪犯减刑。一些司法意见否认被定罪的罪犯在避免依法判处的刑罚方面有任何受保护的利益，而其他意见则认为，《第八修正案》要求对有严重心理健康需求的囚犯进行治疗。本文探讨了刑事处罚背景下的医疗保健提供者在个人治疗利益、这些个人的综合利益、法定保护利益和公共利益之间遇到明显冲突的一些情况。这种分析旨在澄清这些利益以及医疗保健提供者法律和专业义务之间的潜在紧张关系。本文并未全面解决这种紧张关系。相反，其目的是通过澄清相关利益以及医疗保健和惩教复杂互动中各方参与者的责任，促进持续的严格探究。
