These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Protected adults' voting rights: an interdisciplinary study of medical assessment and jurisprudence in France.
    Author: Bosquet A, Mahé I.
    Journal: BMJ Open; 2018 Jul 23; 8(7):e020522. PubMed ID: 30037865.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The study's objective was to describe the decision-making about voting rights of protected adults, which includes the medical assessment and the magistrate's decision to maintain voting rights or not. DESIGN: This work explores using an interdisciplinary approach: first, magistrate's decision-making with a systematic review of jurisprudence and second medical assessment with semistructured questionnaires sent to physicians assessing adults under guardianship. SETTING: France. PARTICIPANTS: For jurisprudence's analysis, all guardianship decisions found on the Legifrance.gouv.fr website and that specified the protected person's voting rights were analysed. For the survey about medical civic assessment, an 18-item questionnaire was sent to all physicians drawing up medical certificates prior to placement under guardianship in one urban (Paris and the three surrounding departments) and one rural area of France (the 10 most rural French administrative departments). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of jurisprudence explores the situation concerning protected adults' voting rights and the reasons for magistrates' decision. The survey about medical civic assessment explores the means of medical assessment (persons consulted, information collected), the content of the medical certificate, the physicians' opinions regarding their role. RESULTS: The analysis of the jurisprudence demonstrates that 30% (51/171) of protected adults kept the right to vote. The survey shows that medical assessment varied according to the physician's gender, specialty and geographical location. Voting capacity was the main criterion common to both physicians and magistrates in the decision whether to maintain voting rights. 27% (34/124) of physicians would like the official texts to be more precise, and one-third (41/133) wished to have tools to facilitate assessment of civic capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Official guides need to be drawn up to detail the criteria for and means of medical assessment of the civil capacity of protected adults, with a view to ensuring transparency and homogeneity in the exercise of justice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]