People in detention and the hospitals of custody and psychiatric treatment in the context of the national health plan in the prison system

Authors

  • Martinho Braga Batista e Silva Ministério da Saúde

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19948

Keywords:

persons deprived of freedom, National Health Plan in the prison system, prison system, single health system

Abstract

In the context of implementation of the National Health Plan in the prison system, people in detention and the Hospitals of Custody and Psychiatric Treatment pointed to a challenge to the effectiveness of the principles and guidelines of the Single Health System. Two questions present themselves as the main critical problems: the concepet of nonimputability, obeying the rules the assumption of responsibility for their actions, the hegemony of expertise, often overlapping control of the daily institutional care. However, the health teams in the prison system have no responsibilities on technical evoluations, pointing to a call to people in detention ruled by the logic of primary care. Furthermore, the accountability of staff can not relate exclusively to obeying the rules and seeking guarantees, among other tasks which refer to an essence of being human, but the extent of engagement in existence in common, at the point to fit the risk and uncertainty in everyday life.

References

Brasil / MS / MJ. Seminário Nacional para Reorientação dos Hospitais de Custódia e Tratamento Psiquiátrico: Relatório Final. Brasília, 2002.

Brasil/MS/SAS/DAPES. Plano Nacional de Saúde no Sistema Penitenciário. Brasília-DF: Editora MS, 2ª edição, 2005.

Brasil / MS / MJ. Portaria Interministerial n.º 1.777, de 9 de setembro de 2003.

Brasil / MS / MJ. Lei n.º 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre as condições para a promoção, proteção e recuperação da saúde, a organização e o funcionamento dos serviços correspondentes e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 20 set.1990.

Brasil / MS / MJ. Lei n.º 7.210, de 11de julho de 1984. Institui a Lei de Execução Penal. Diário Oficial da União, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 13jul. 1984.

Carrara S. Crime e loucura: o surgimento do manicômio judiciário na passagem do século. Eduerj / Edusp, Rio de Janeiro / São Paulo, 1998.

Fry P. “Direito positivo versus direito clássico: a psicologização do crime no Brasil no pensamento de Heitor Carrilho. In: Figueira S.A. (org.) Cultura da Psicanálise, São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1986.

Delgado, P. As razões da tutela: psiquiatria, justiça e cidadania do louco no Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Te Corá,1992.

Ewald F. “L’expérience de la responsabilité”, in: Qu’est ce qu’est êtreresponsable? Scienses Humaines Comunication et PolyPAO. Seita, Paris: 1997.

Ferreira, M. Necessidades Humanas, Direito à Saúde e Sistema Penal. Brasília. Dissertação (Mestrado em Política Social) – Departamento de Serviço Social, Universidade de Brasília, 2008.

Downloads

Published

2010-04-01

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2010)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis