DOCSLIB.ORG

Symposium on Decision Making Process Regarding Medical Treatment in End of Life Situations the Speakers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Symposium on Decision Making Process Regarding Medical Treatment in End of Life Situations the Speakers Symposium on decision making process regarding medical treatment in end of life situations 30 November – 1 December 2010 Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg, France Conference organised by the Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI) of the Council of Europe The speakers: abstracts, full texts and biographical notes TABLE OF CONTENT Mr Jean Leonetti (France) - Introductory message ............................................................ 3 Prof. Eugenijus Gefenas (Lithuania) – Medical End-of-Life Decisions: Conceptual Clarifications and Ethical Implications .............................................................................. 7 Prof. Stein Kaasa (Norway) - Shared historical evolution and international comparison ... 13 Mrs Isabelle Erny (France) – What is at Stake in the Symposium in Relation to the Principles of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine ................................... 17 Prof. Andreas Valentin (Austria) - Nature of possible decisions in end of life situations in intensive care ........................................................................................................................ 26 Prof. Inez de Beaufort (The Netherlands) – Nature of Possible Decisions in End-of-Life Situations .......................................................................................................................... 32 Prof. Dr. Dr. Jochen Vollmann (Germany) – The Person, Even Though Sick, is in Full Capacity to Participate in the Decision Process ............................................................... 40 Prof. Thérèse St Laurent Gagnon (Canada) – End-of-Life Decisions in the Case of Children ............................................................................................................................ 46 Prof. Ergun Özsunay (Turkey) – Participation in the Decision by the Person who is in a Situation that Affects or Limits His/Her Capacity to Express Will ................................. 49 Dr. Irma Pahlman (Finland) – Previously Expressed Wishes: Advanced Directives/Living Will/Continuing Power of Attorney .................................................... 61 Prof. Pablo Simón Lorda (Spain) - Advance Directives in Europe and Spain: Situation and Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 66 Alzheimer Europe (Patient organisation) – The Use of Advance Directives by People with Dementia – the Views of Alzheimer Europe ........................................................... 73 Prof. Emmanuel Agius (Malta) – Safeguarding the Unconscious Patients’ Overall Benefit: Towards a “Consensus Building’ Approach” .................................................... 77 Prof. Jane Seymour (United Kingdom) – The Person Cannot Take Part in the Decision 86 Prof. Anatoly Zilber (Russian Federation) – Making Decision and Special Care in End- of-Life Patients ................................................................................................................. 92 Mrs Andrée Endinger (France) – The Person Cannot Participate in the Decision Process .......................................................................................................................................... 94 European Multiple Sclerosis Platform (patient organisation) – A Time to Reflect and a Time to Share… the Perspective of Patients .................................................................... 99 General rapporteur: Dr Regis Aubry (France) ............................................................... 105 Dr Beatrice Gabriela Ioan (Romania) ............................................................................ 107 Dr Takis Vidalis (Greece) .............................................................................................. 115 2 Mr Jean Leonetti (France) - Introductory message Mayor of Antibes Juan-les-Pins Deputy of Maritimes Alps President of the Town Community of Sophia-Antipolis First Vice-President of the UMP Group UMP at the National Assembly Text read by the Coordinator Ladies and gentlemen, I regret that I am unable to personally participate in this Symposium. I would nevertheless like to share with you some thoughts concerning the French experience and in particular the process which brought about the adoption of the Act. I would just like to say how much I welcome the holding of this symposium. The subject of this meeting covers a wide range of ethical, medical, legal and social issues, which is why the multidisciplinary approach chosen, associating physicians specialising in palliative care, law- yers and ethicists, was highly appropriate. The European dimension of this symposium is also a first, and should enable us to compare experi- ences and arrive at conclusions on medical practices which will ultimately be fairly similar. The debate you will be holding will therefore be very useful for three reasons: - it can help clarify such concepts as treatment withdrawal, terminal sedation, dual effect and withdrawal of artificial feeding; - it can clarify the places of the patient, the physician, and family and relatives in decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment, since there is often major confusion about their respec- tive roles; - lastly, society needs precise rules on responsibilities for decisions to withdraw treatment, in order to distinguish between treatment withdrawal and what would provide an opening to a right to die, in the form either of a lethal injection administered by the physician or of assisted suicide. Our Spanish friends are well aware of this, since they seem to be head- ing towards legislation on treatment withdrawal, possibly to be enacted in March 2011. However, the debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide is completely different, and is not the subject of this meeting At this stage, as an introduction to our day-and-a-half of work, I think I can only put a number of questions which will hopefully fuel your discussions. I would like to mention the matter of the procedure for withholding and withdrawing treatment from three different angles, namely those of the patient, family and relatives and the physician. Where the patient is concerned, you will have to differentiate between patients who are conscious and unconscious in end-of-life situations. The latter case would require particular attention. You will have to assess the criteria for the patients’ autonomy, consider the requisite interpretation of their ad- vance directives, their relationship with their condition, and the priority to be given to these directives in terms of the role played in this procedure by a surrogate appointed by the patient. Should we simp- ly use general advance directives or, on the contrary, should we demand specific directives, as hap- pens in Germany and the United Kingdom? Should they have binding force? How are we to over- come any contraction between these directives and the therapeutic option considered most appropri- 3 ate by the physician? Should there be an order of priority between the advance directive and the sur- rogate? Can we be sure that the opinion of the surrogate fully reflects that of the patient? Should the surrogate be different from the person to be notified? The place of family and relatives is essential, but the latter are not always in full agreement. It can happen, as in the Terri Schiavo case in the United States, that not all the members of the same family agree on the advisability of withdrawing treatment. The physician must get to know the family, dia- logue with them and establish relations based on trust. The choice of words and the approach to rela- tives, especially where the patient is unable to take decisions, are vitally important. This whole area requires time, and we should not forget that the palliative approach also involves the patients’ rela- tives. The place of the physician. The physician must analyse the therapeutic alternatives, comparing them with the choices of the patients and their families. He or she will consider the traditional ethical principles of beneficence and non maleficence. Which questions are most relevant to physician: should we prioritise survival with further chemotherapy, for example, or is it better to move on to pallia- tive treatment? Is there any risk in treating the patient in an unreasonably obstinate manner? This is not always easy to assess. How are we to evaluate, for instance, unreasonable obstinacy in intensive care departments looking after patients with acute cerebral lesions? How is a physician to manage the ambivalence of the patient and his family, who waver between the survival instinct, a refusal to give up and treatment withdrawal? How are we to achieve a clinical evaluation of the patient and in- corporate a pluridisciplinary dimension into this process? How are we to announce a fatal prognosis to a patient? What responsibility must the physician take for deciding to abstain from or withdraw therapy? Should the final decision go the physician, the surrogate or the close relatives when the patient is unconscious and in an end-of-life situation? We in France considered these questions at great length when preparing the 2005 legislation on the rights of patients in end-of-life situations and once again in 2008, when the Prime Minister and the President of the National Assembly assigned me the task of evaluating this legislation. I would just like to take this opportunity to describe the working method we chose and the content of this legislation. I am not trying to “sell” this
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Décision N° 2012-661 DC Du 29 Décembre 2012
    Décision n° 2012-661 DC du 29 décembre 2012 (Loi de finances rectificative pour 2012) Le Conseil constitutionnel a été saisi, dans les conditions prévues à l’article 61, deuxième alinéa, de la Constitution, de la loi de finances rectificative pour 2012, le 20 décembre 2012, par MM. François FILLON, François BAROIN, Jacques Alain BÉNISTI, Marcel BONNOT, Mme Valérie BOYER, MM. Bernard BROCHAND, Dominique BUSSEREAU, Jérôme CHARTIER, Guillaume CHEVROLLIER, Jean- Louis CHRIST, Dino CINIERI, Éric CIOTTI, Jean-Michel COUVE, Charles de LA VERPILLIÈRE, Camille de ROCCA SERRA, Bernard DEBRÉ, Jean-Pierre DECOOL, Rémi DELATTE, Dominique DORD, Mme Marianne DUBOIS, MM. Christian ESTROSI, Hervé GAYMARD, Mme Annie GENEVARD, MM. Guy GEOFFROY, Charles-Ange GINESY, Jean-Pierre GIRAN, Philippe GOUJON, Mmes Claude GREFF, Anne GROMMERCH, Arlette GROSSKOST, Françoise GUÉGOT, MM. Jean-Claude GUIBAL, Jean-Jacques GUILLET, Patrick HETZEL, Philippe HOUILLON, Jean-François LAMOUR, Thierry LAZARO, Mme Isabelle LE CALLENNEC, MM. Dominique LE MÈNER, Alain LEBOEUF, Jean LEONETTI, Céleste LETT, Mmes Geneviève LEVY, Véronique LOUWAGIE, MM. Gilles LURTON, Alain MARC, Alain MARLEIX, Philippe Armand MARTIN, Jean-Claude MATHIS, Patrick OLLIER, Mmes Valérie PECRESSE, Bérengère POLETTI, MM. Frédéric REISS, Arnaud ROBINET, Claude STURNI, Lionel TARDY, Guy TEISSIER, Michel TERROT, François VANNSON, Jean-Sébastien VIALATTE, Jean-Pierre VIGIER, Laurent WAUQUIEZ et Éric WOERTH, députés ; Et le même jour, par MM. Jean-Claude GAUDIN, Pierre ANDRÉ, Gérard BAILLY, Philippe BAS, Michel BÉCOT, Pierre BORDIER, Joël BOURDIN, Mme Marie-Thérèse BRUGUIÈRE, MM. François-Noël BUFFET, François CALVET, Christian CAMBON, Jean-Claude CARLE, Mme Caroline CAYEUX, MM. Gérard CÉSAR, Pierre CHARON, Alain CHATILLON, Gérard CORNU, Raymond COUDERC, Jean-Patrick COURTOIS, Mme Isabelle DEBRÉ, MM.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications
    Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications Assessing Scientific, Ethical, Religious, and Policy Issues Prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science Mark S. Frankel Audrey R. Chapman September 2000 http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/germline/main.htm i This report is the product of a collaboration between the authors and a working group convened to advise the authors, and does not necessarily represent the views of American Association for the Advancement of Science or The Greenwall Foundation, which funded this study. Copyright © 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science Cover: Designed and created by the Office of Publication Services at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………v Introduction………………………………………………………….1 Major Findings, Concerns, and Recommendations…………………7 Defining Inheritable Genetic Modific ation……………….………..11 Therapeutic Need…………………………………………………..13 Efficacy of Different Approaches to IGM…………………………15 Safety Issues……………………………………………………….23 Inadvertent Germ Line Modific ation………………………………26 Religious Perspectives……………………………………………..27 Ethical Analysis and Considerations……………………………….32 Ethically Appropriate Applications of IGM: Therapy versus Enhancement.………………………………………………………40 Reproductive Rights………………………………………………..44 Balancing Scientific Freedom and Responsibility…………………45 Oversight…………………………………………………………...46 Conclusion.…………………………………………………………56 Glossary…………………………………………………………….59 Appendix A: AAAS Working Group Members……………………65
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019
    i Annual Report 2019 Annual Report 2019 Annual Report 2019 Contents 2 3 Annual Report The Chairman’s Message 5 First published in 2020 by the National Book Council of Malta The National Writers’ Congress 8 2019 Central Public Library, Prof. J. Mangion Str., Floriana FRN 1800 The National Book Prize 10 ktieb.org.mt The Malta Book Festival 14 Printing: Gutenberg Press Foreign Work & Literary Exports 18 Design: Steven Scicluna Copyright text © Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ktieb The Campus Book Festival 22 Copyright photos © Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ktieb The Malta Book Fund 24 ISBN: 978-99957-939-1-3: Annual Report 2019 (Digital format) Audiovisual Productions 26 Other Contests 28 All rights reserved by the National Book Council This book is being disseminated free of charge and cannot be sold. It may be Other Initiatives 30 borrowed, donated and reproduced in part. It may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, without prior permission from the Financial Report 32 National Book Council. ISBN & ISMN 36 Public Lending Rights Payments 68 About the National Book Council The Chairman’s message 4 The National Book Council is a public entity Staff and contact details 2019 was an eventful and challenging year in is progressing very well thanks to sustained 5 that caters for the Maltese book industry which the Council kept growing, receiving as public funding support. Admittedly, I had Annual Report with several important services for authors Executive Chairman much as an 80 per cent increase in its public strong qualms about some decisions made by and publishers whilst striving to encourage Mark Camilleri reading and promote the book as a medium of funding for its recurrent expenditure over newly-appointed bureaucrats in the finance Deputy Chairman communication in all its formats.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Generations: a Bibliography (In English Only) Jim Dator September 2008(A)
    Future Generations: A bibliography (In English only) Jim Dator September 2008(a) I. Apparently the first major philosopher to identify and write extensively about the issue of intergenerational fairness was John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971 (See also his Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press, 2001) Two volumes were devoted entirely to Future Generations soon after: Richard Sikora and Brian Barry, Obligations to Future Generations. Temple University Press, 1978. Thomas Schwartz, "Obligations to Posterity," pp. 3-14; Jan Narveson, "Future People and us," pp. 38-60; Gregory Kavka, "The Futurity Problem," pp. 186-203; Brian Berry, "Circumstances of Justice and Future Generations," pp. 205-248. Ernest Partridge, ed., Responsibilities to Future Generations. Prometheus Books, 1980 Hans Jonas, "Technology and Responsibility: The Ethics of an Endangered Future," pp. 23-36; Thomas Derr, "The Obligation to the Future," pp. 37-45; Martin Golding, "Obligations to Future Generations," pp. 61-72; Joel Feinberg, "The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations," pp. 139-150; Ruth Macklin, "Can Future Generations Correctly Be Said to Have Rights?" pp. 151-157; Richard De George, "The Environment, Rights, and Future Generations," pp. 157-166; Galen Pletcher, "The Rights of Future Generations," pp. 167-170; Annette Baier, "The Rights of Past and Future Persons," pp. 171-186; Thomas Thompson, "Are We Obligated to Future Others?" pp. 195-202; Ernest Partridge, "Why Care About the Future?" pp. 203-220. II. Subsequently, several futures generation groups were established: A. Future Generations Programme of the Foundation for International Studies at the University of Malta, supported by Unesco.
    [Show full text]
  • Programme Updated 1 September 2015
    Programme Updated 1 September 2015 Thursday 10 September 13.00 - 15.30 Registration 15.30 - 16.00 Welcome and introduction by Aldegonde Brenninkmeijer-Werhahn, Director of INTAMS First session: Indissolubility and Theology of Marriage 16.00 - 16.45 Individua Coniunctio - What does Indissoluble Marriage Mean in Times of Individual Freedom? Andrea Grillo, Pontificio Ateneo Sant’ Anselmo, Roma 16.45 - 17.15 Response by Eberhard Schockenhoff, University of Freiburg, Germany 17.15 - 17.45 Coffee break 17.45 - 18.15 Response by Peter Hünermann, University of Tübingen, Germany 18.15 - 19.00 Plenary Discussion Friday 11 September 08.30 - 09.00 Prayer Session Second session: Church Doctrine and Pastoral Care 09.15 - 10.00 Conversational Methods of Discernment: Learning for Mission from the Domestic Church Clare Watkins, University of Roehampton, London, UK 10.00 - 10.30 Response by Emmanuel Agius, University of Malta 10.30 - 11.00 Coffee break 11.00 - 11.45 Plenary Discussion 12.00 - 13.00 Language Group Discussions 13.00 - 14.30 Break Third session: An Ethics of Mercy 14:30 - 15:00 Recollectio Synodi * The panel will be composed of a 15.00 - 15.45 Landmarks for a Christian Ethics of Gradualness married couple with children and a Roger Burggraeve, KU Leuven, Belgium double career (Netherlands), a per- 15.45 - 16.15 Response by Jochen Sautermeister, University of Munich, Germany son living in a single state (France), a divorced-remarried couple (Italy), 16.15 - 16.45 Coffee break a parent of homosexual children (UK), 16.45 - 18.45 The Church I
    [Show full text]
  • N° 754 Assemblée Nationale Proposition De
    N° 754 _____ ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 QUATORZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale le 27 février 2013. PROPOSITION DE LOI visant à renforcer les droits des patients en fin de vie, (Renvoyée à la commission des affaires sociales, à défaut de constitution d’une commission spéciale dans les délais prévus par les articles 30 et 31 du Règlement.) présentée par Madame et Messieurs Jean LEONETTI, Christian JACOB, Damien ABAD, Élie ABOUD, Bernard ACCOYER, Yves ALBARELLO, Nicole AMELINE, Benoist APPARU, Olivier AUDIBERT-TROIN, Jean-Pierre BARBIER, Jacques Alain BÉNISTI, Sylvain BERRIOS, Étienne BLANC, Marcel BONNOT, Jean-Claude BOUCHET, Valérie BOYER, Bernard BROCHAND, Gilles CARREZ, Yves CENSI, Jérôme CHARTIER, Luc CHATEL, Gérard CHERPION, Dino CINIERI, Jean-Michel COUVE, Olivier DASSAULT, Marc-Philippe DAUBRESSE, Charles de COURSON, Claude de GANAY, Charles de LA VERPILLIÈRE, Bernard DEBRÉ, Jean-Pierre DECOOL, Bernard DEFLESSELLES, Lucien DEGAUCHY, Rémi DELATTE, Nicolas DHUICQ, Jean-Pierre DOOR, Marianne DUBOIS, Daniel FASQUELLE, Yannick FAVENNEC, Georges FENECH, Marie-Louise FORT, Yves FOULON, Marc FRANCINA, Yves FROMION, Laurent FURST, Annie GENEVARD, Guy GEOFFROY, Bernard GÉRARD, Alain GEST, Georges GINESTA, Charles-Ange GINESY, Jean- Pierre GIRAN, Claude GOASGUEN, Philippe GOUJON, Claude GREFF, Anne – 2 – GROMMERCH, Arlette GROSSKOST, Françoise GUÉGOT, Jean-Claude GUIBAL, Jean-Jacques GUILLET, Michel HEINRICH, Michel HERBILLON, Antoine HERTH, Patrick HETZEL, Philippe HOUILLON, Guénhaël
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae A
    CURRICULUM VITAE A. BIODATA NAME: Olanike Kudirat ADEYEMO, PhD, FCVSN, FEnv, FAAS, FAS, FTWAS SEX: Female DATE OF BIRTH: 17th July 1970 MARITAL STATUS: Married NATIONALITY: Nigerian CONTACT ADDRESS: Fish and Wildlife Unit, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria TEL: +234-805-5454-544 E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected] WEBSITE: http://vet.ui.edu.ng/OKAdeyemo GOOGLE SCHOLAR: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AbsyqJgAAAAJ&hl=en SCOPUS AUTHOR ID: 7003434760 ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3404-5090 LiveDNA 234.10354 -http://livedna.org/234.10354 WIKIPEDIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olanike_Adeyemo B. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (WITH DATES) • Ph.D (Aquatic Epidemiology and Toxicology), University of Ibadan, Nigeria (2005) • Masters Degree in Veterinary Public Health (MVPH), University of Ibadan, Nigeria (1998) • Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), University of Ibadan, Nigeria (1994) C. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DIPLOMAS • Fellow, College of Veterinary Surgeon, Nigeria (2013) • Registered Veterinary Surgeon (VCN Reg. No 2471) D. EMPLOYMENT WITH DATES/JOB EXPERIENCE EMPLOYMENT: 1. March 13, 2017 till Date: Pioneer Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Innovation and Strategic Partnerships), University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 2. October 2011 till Date: Professor, Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 3. August 2013-July 2015: Schlumberger Foundation sponsored Visiting Scholar, Center for Human and Environmental Toxicology, Department of Physiological sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA 1 4. October 2008 till October 2011: Reader/Associate Professor, in the Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 5. October 2005 till October 2008, Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor, in the Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutionalisation of Bioethics in the European Union
    THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF BIOETHICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION EMMANUEL AGIUS DEAN, FACULTY OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF MALTA MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN GROUP OF ETHICS IN SCIENE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES (ADVISORY GROUP TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION) EUROPEAN BIOETHICS? Bioethics: typical and specific product of the American culture? “American ethos” (Albert Jonsen): • a destiny to make life better than it is and a conviction that it is possible to do so • a faith in the values of individuals and their capacity to reach consensual agreement • a vague but genuine commitment to a conventional morality Diego Gracia: Jonsen’s interpretations are extremely ‘parochial’ and ‘ethnocentric’ THE IDENTITY OF A EUROPEAN CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Cultural articulation of bioethics (Charles Taylor) Bioethics is not only the product of reason alone Bioethics is shaped by beliefs, values and modes of thinking grounded in a specific culture Morality and identity (Charles Taylor) Bioethics is ‘communitarian’ or ‘cultural’ (reflects not only individual responsibilities but also social dimensions of life) THE IDENTITY OF A EUROPEAN CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Features of European Culture • Europe is not merely a geographical entity, but also a political, historical and cultural concept • Influence of Christianity • Historical events: French Revolution, Two World Wars • European values: human rights and freedoms, tolerance, equal opportunity, social justice, human dignity, solidarity CONTROVERSIES TO IDENTIFY A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Is it possible to identify a European approach
    [Show full text]
  • N° 1287 Assemblée Nationale
    N° 1287 —— ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 TREIZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale le 28 novembre 2008. RAPPORT D’INFORMATION FAIT AU NOM DE LA MISSION D’ÉVALUATION DE LA LOI N° 2005-370 DU 22 AVRIL 2005 relative aux droits des malades et à la fin de vie ET PRÉSENTÉ PAR M. Jean LEONETTI, Député. —— TOME I RAPPORT — 3 — SOMMAIRE ___ Pages INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 11 PREMIÈRE PARTIE : UNE LÉGISLATION MAL APPLIQUÉE .......................................... 15 Chapitre I Une réglementation ignorée ou mal comprise ...................................... 15 A. DES ACTIONS D’INFORMATION ÉPARSES............................................................ 17 B. UNE PROMOTION TARDIVE DE LA LOI .................................................................. 19 Chapitre II Une application de la loi contrastée et des interrogations persistantes .................................................................................................................... 21 A. COMMENT LES DÉCISIONS DE LIMITATION OU D’ARRÊT DE TRAITEMENT SONT-ELLES PRISES ?........................................................................................... 21 1. L’élaboration de la décision collégiale par l’équipe soignante ....................... 21 2. La prise en compte des avis non médicaux..................................................... 25 a) Les directives anticipées..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Option : Enjeux De La France Contemporaine Et L'union Européenne
    CONCOURS EXTERNE DE SECRETAIRE ADMINISTRATIF DE L’INTERIEUR ET DE L’OUTRE-MER - SESSION 2012 - Epreuve n°2 Série de six à neuf questions à réponse courte portant, au choix du candidat exprimé lors de l’inscription au concours, sur l’une des options suivantes : - Gestion des ressources humaines dans les organisations, - Comptabilité et finance, - Problèmes économiques et sociaux, - Enjeux de la France contemporaine et l’Union européenne. Pour chaque option, le questionnaire à réponse courte comporte des questions communes et des questions propres à l’option choisie. A partir d’un ou plusieurs documents, les questions communes portent sur des connaissances générales permettant d’évaluer l’ouverture au monde, l’intérêt porté aux politiques publiques, aux valeurs du service public et permettant de tester la capacité de raisonnement. Pour la partie optionnelle, chaque question est accompagnée d’un ou plusieurs documents en rapport avec la question posée. Un même texte peut servir de support à plusieurs questions. Le dossier documentaire pour l’ensemble des questions ne peut excéder dix pages au total. (Durée : 3 heures) (Coefficient 2, dont coefficient 1 pour les questions communes et de capacité de raisonnement et coefficient 1 pour les questions relatives à l’option) Option : Enjeux de la France contemporaine et l’Union européenne Le dossier documentaire comporte 9 pages. IMPORTANT IL EST RAPPELE AUX CANDIDATS QU’AUCUN SIGNE DISTINCTIF NE DOIT APPARAITRE NI SUR LA COPIE NI SUR LES INTERCALAIRES. QUESTIONS PARTIE 1 : questions communes Question n°1 Quel est l’impact de l’augmentation du chômage ? (2,5 points) Document n°1 : extrait de l’article « Le chômage atteint un nouveau record en octobre », Le Monde du 28/11/2011.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE Review Index of Contents
    Unit price 10 Euro Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations Issue 3/2005 (3rd English Edition) ISSN 1617 - 1799 INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE Review Index of Contents Commission for Future Generations in the Knesset – Lessons Special: Documentation of FRFG Event Learnt by Prof. Shlomo Shoham and Nira Lamay 35 nd th Young Leaders Congress, 22 - 26 June, 2005 in Berlin: The Committee for the Future - Future policy „Ecological Generational Justice into the Constitution?“ 4 by Dr. Paula Tiihonen 36 Topic: Institutionalisation of Intergenerational Book Recommendations and Reviews 38 Justice Responsibility for Future Generations: Scope and Limits by Prof. Dr. Dieter Birnbacher 22 Internal matters 40 John Rawls on Rights of Future Generations by Prof. Dr. Claus Dierksmeier 23 Intergenerational Justice Impressum by Ass. Prof. Emmanuel Agius 24 Publisher: Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations Justice Between Generations: Limits of Procedural Justice (Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen) by Prof. Michael Wallack 25 Editors-in-Chief: Jörg Tremmel, Yanti Ehrentraut, Frauke Austermann Principles of Generational Justice Editorial staff: Tobias Kemnitzer, Thomas Wiechers by Prof. Dr. Christoph Lumer 26 Layout: Katarzyna Opielka, E-mail: [email protected] Ockershäuser Allee 5, 35037 Marburg, Tel/Fax: 06421 97 22 76 The Impossibility of Intergenerational Justice Concept and Implementation: Jörg Tremmel by Prof. Dr. Wilfred Beckerman 27 Print: Druckhaus Marburg, Im Rudert 13, 35043 Marburg Printed on chlorine-free bleached paper. Towards a Pragmatic Approach to Intergenerational Justice in Postal address of Publisher Germany Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations, by Dr. Johannes Meier and Dr. Ole Wintermann 27 (Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen) Postfach 5115, A Constitutional Law for Future Generations - The “other” Form 61422 Oberursel of the Social Contract: The Generation Contract Germany by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Dossier De Presse Fondation Des Usagers.Indd
    DOSSIER DE PRESSE AVRIL 2016 FONDATION DES USAGERS DU SYSTÈME DE SANTÉ siège administratif 106 rue d’Amsterdam - 75009 Paris [email protected] CONTACT PRESSE : Bridge Communication Francis Temman - M. 06 50 92 21 56 [email protected] SOMMAIRE 01 La charte de la Fondation : mission et principes généraux 02 La Fondation : organisation 03 Biographie de Jean Leonetti 04 Le soutien dans le cadre d’appel à projets CONTACT MÉDIAS : Bridge Communication Francis Temman - M. 06 50 92 21 56 2 [email protected] 01 Charte de la Fondation: missions et principes généraux Créée sous l’égide de la Fondation de France, à l’initiative de la Fédération de l’hospitalisation privée (FHP), la Fondation des usagers du système de santé réunit autour d’elle les acteurs associatifs, les professionnels de la santé, ayant pour objectif de promouvoir une expression nouvelle de la démocratie sanitaire et soutenir les projets innovants. Dans cette perspective, les membres de la Fondation des Usagers du système de santé s’engagent à promouvoir : • les actions de prévention de tous ordres menées par les associations d’usagers avec la participation des établissements hospitaliers, dans la perspective de la prise en charge globale du patient et la construction future du parcours de soins. • les actions d’accès aux soins des personnes précaires ou plus généralement des populations fragiles comme par exemple, les handicapés, voire les actions tendant à préserver l’accès géographique, relevant de la démarche d’accessibilité à tous, conditionnant le respect du libre choix de l’établissement de santé. • les actions d’amélioration de la qualité, afin de mieux appréhender la demande des patients, dans un esprit de partage des connaissances mutuelles, en veillant au respect du consentement libre et éclairé du patient.
    [Show full text]