Health and Human Rights Education in U.S. Schools of Medicine and Public Health: Current Status and Future Challenges

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of human rights in the protection and promotion of health, formal human rights education has been lacking in schools of medicine and public health. Our objectives were: 1) to determine the nature and extent of health and human rights (HHR) education among schools of medicine (SOMs) and public health (SPHs); 2) to identify perceived barriers to implementing HHR curricula; 3) to learn about deans' interests and attitudes toward HHR education, and; 4) to identify factors associated with offering HHR education. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among deans of all accredited allopathic SOMs and SPHs in the United States and Puerto Rico. Seventy-one percent of U.S. SOMs and SPHs responded. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that their schools offered some form of HHR education. Main barriers to offering HHR education included competition for time, lack of qualified instructors and lack of funding. Among schools not offering HHR education, 35% of deans were interested in offering HHR education. Seventy-six percent of all deans believed that it was very important or important to offer HHR education. Multiple regression analysis revealed that deans' attitudes were the most important factor associated with offering any HHR education. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that though a majority of deans of SOMs and SPHs believe that knowledge about human rights is important in health practice and support the inclusion of HHR studies in their schools, HHR education is lacking at most of their institutions. These results and the growing recognition of the critical interdependence between health and human rights indicate a need for SOMs and SPHs to work towards formal inclusion of HHR studies in their curricula, and that HHR competency requirements be considered to overcome barriers to its inclusion

What "best practice" could be in Palliative Care: an analysis of statements on practice and ethics expressed by the main Health Organizations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In palliative care it would be necessary to refer to a model. Nevertheless it seems that there are no official statements which state and describe that model. We carried out an analysis of the statements on practice and ethics of palliative care expressed by the main health organizations to show which dimensions of end-of-life care are taken into consideration.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The official documents by the most representative health organisations committed to the definition of policies and guidelines for palliative and end-of-life care had been considered. The documents were analysed through a framework of the components of end-of-life care derived from literature, which was composed of 4 main "areas" and of 12 "sub-areas".</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 34 organizations were identified, 7 international organisations, and 27 organisations operating on the national level in four different countries (Australia, Canada, UK and United States). Up to 56 documents were selected and analysed. Most of them (38) are position statements. Relevant quotations from the documents were presented by "areas" and "sub-areas". In general, the "sub-areas" of symptoms control as well as those referring to relational and social issues are more widely covered by the documents than the "sub-areas" related to "preparation" and to "existential condition". Indeed, the consistency of end-of-life choices with the patient's wishes, as well as completion and meaningfulness at the end of life is given only a minor relevance.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>An integrated model of the best palliative care practice is generally lacking in the documents. It might be argued that the lack of a fixed and coherent model is due to the relevance of unavoidable context issues in palliative care, such as specific cultural settings, patient-centred variables, and family specificity. The implication is that palliative care staff have continuously to adapt their model of caring to the specific needs and values of each patient, more than applying a fixed, although maybe comprehensive, care model.</p