1. |
- Dahlman, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Inledning
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Juridiska grundbegrepp : En vänbok till David Reidhav - En vänbok till David Reidhav. - 9789144127118 ; , s. 13-18
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
2. |
- Wahlberg, Lena, et al.
(författare)
-
Begreppet lagtolkning
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Juridiska grundbegrepp : En vänbok till David Reidhav - En vänbok till David Reidhav. - 9789144127118 ; , s. 141-162
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
3. |
- Johansson, Mats, et al.
(författare)
-
Undantag från kravet på etikprövning av humanistisk och samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. En internationell utblick
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift. - 0039-0747. ; 125:4, s. 1143-1168
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Swedish ethical review system has recently come under heavy criticism - criticism that has largely centered on the system’s negative impact on research in the humanities and social sciences. Among other things, it has been claimed that the requirement for ethical review is unnecessarily comprehensive. One way of exploring the reasonableness of the Swedish system is to compare it with the rules and considerations found in other jurisdictions regarding the type of research project that needs to undergo ethical review. This study compares the Swedish system with a sample of systems found in Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia. A number of exemptions from the requirements of ethical review are identified and discussed. These exemptions that can serve as a starting point for further analyses and changes to the Swedish system.
|
|
4. |
- Litins'ka, Yana
(författare)
-
Assessing Capacity to Decide on Medical Treatment: On Human Rights and the Use of Medical Knowledge in the Laws of England, Russia and Sweden
- 2018
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- To provide a valid consent to – or refusal of – medical intervention, a patient must be legally capable to decide. This dissertation evaluates and compares when the assessment of mental abilities to refuse – or consent to – somatic medical intervention is required in England, Russia and Sweden, and what criteria must be applied to assess the ability to decide about somatic medical interventions in these legal orders. Two standards are used for evaluation and comparison. These standards are consistency with scientific knowledge of the decision-making process, and compliance with the United Nations and the Council of Europe human rights law requirements. The evaluation and comparison of the national legal orders seek to highlight the solutions and the potential difficulties that the domestic legal systems face when they attempt to realise the two standards.The analysis in the thesis indicates that the United Nations and the Council of Europe treaty bodies have chosen different approaches as to permissibility of capacity assessment procedures. It is argued that after adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the capacity assessments of adults should not be allowed in healthcare.A number of common problems within the selected legal systems are identified and analysed in the thesis. The question of when capacity assessments must start has not yet received much attention at national levels, which results in an absence of foreseeability and a possibility for discriminating against patients on the grounds of disability or health. The thesis highlights the fact that the national law requirements to draw a distinction between mental and somatic disorders/care are particularly problematic, and may lead to arbitrariness. The questions as to the legal classification of capacity assessment procedures (whether they are medical interventions or the collection of personal data), and accordingly, the legal status of refusal or absence of consent are also poorly foreseeable, which may lead to a violation of the patient’s right to privacy.The analysis shows that the criteria for capacity assessments are regulated in a manner that inevitably leads to arbitrariness when deciding whether a patient can make healthcare decisions. It was shown that the criteria are interpreted differently by various actors, and no agreement as to the required level of performance is reached. It is also argued that capacity assessments rarely allow for achieving the goal of checking whether or not a patient can choose what to do with his or her own body.
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- Persson, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Vår erfarenhet av beprövad erfarenhet: några begreppsprofiler och ett verktyg för precisering
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Läkartidningen. - 0023-7205. ; 112:49, s. 2230-2232
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Begreppet vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet är av vikt för många verksamheter i svensk offentlig sektor. Läsaren av Läkartidningen vet att begreppet är undflyende och att tolkningarna av det varierar. Det har liknats vid en trollformel och kritiserats för att öppna för godtycke och skönsmässiga bedömningar. Värst utsatt är komponenten beprövad erfarenhet som ofta lyfts fram som särskilt svårdefinierad. Det har dessutom hävdats att begreppet förändras över tid och inte kan preciseras. Mot bakgrund av den centrala roll som vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet spelar inom vården, liksom i den juridiska regleringen av vårdpersonals och patienters skyldigheter och rättigheter, finns ett tydligt behov av att klargöra begreppet. Här identifierar vi sex begreppsliga dimensioner hos beprövad erfarenhet. I Läkartidningen hamnar tyngdpunkten än i den ena och än i den andra av dessa dimensioner. Begreppsprofilen varierar. Det hindrar inte att man kan sätta ner foten och stipulera vilken profil som är mest relevant för det avsedda ändamålet. Artikeln bidrar med ett verktyg.
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
- Zenker, Frank, et al.
(författare)
-
Generalization in Legal Argumentation
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2473-2850 .- 2473-2842. ; 20:1, s. 80-99
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When interpreting a natural language argument that generalizes over a contextually relevant category, audiences are likely to activate the category prototype and transfer its characteristics onto category instances. A generalized argument can thus appear more (respectively less) persuasive than one mentioning a specific category instance, provided the argument’s claim is more (less) warranted for the prototype than for the instance (positive and negative prototype effect). To investigate this effect in legal contexts using mock-scenarios, professional and lay judges at Swedish courts evaluated the persuasiveness of arguments giving a generalized or a specific description of an eyewitness. The generalized version described the witness either as an alcohol-intoxicated person or as a child, while the specific version varied both the amount of alcohol consumed (two vs. five glasses of wine) and the child’s age (four vs. 12 years). To investigate the effect of legal expertise on argument selection, moreover, law and social science students evaluate the persuasiveness of both argument versions. Though we observed statistically significant prototype effects as well as expertise effects, results were mixed and sometimes ran counter to normative expectation.
|
|
10. |
- Arvidsson, Niklas, et al.
(författare)
-
Begreppet sedvana
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Juridiska grundbegrepp. - 9789144127118 ; , s. 191-238
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|