Comparing restrictive measures in infectious diseases acts in Nordic countries

Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden share common international legal framework in health law: conventions of the UN and the European Council, case law of the European Court of Human Rights and in addition, the recommendations of the European Council and several international declarations of medical ethics.

Patient’s right to self-determination and the principle of informed consent as authorization to treatment is the general rule in all the Nordic countries, also in involuntary treatment and considering restrictive measures. Use of restrictive measures and giving treatment in the patient’s best interest require specific justification, such as deterioration of patient’s illness or endangerment to patient’s or other person’s health, life or safety. Human rights balancing shifts from self-determination and freedom to protecting life and necessary care depending on the patient group, circumstances and country.

Patients with infectious diseases differ from other groups of patients in whose treatment restrictive measures are being used. These patients are mainly capable of self-determination whereas in other patient groups decision-making incapability usually is the reason why treatment in the best interest of the patient and ensuring necessary care is needed. In my presentation I’ll focus on comparing restrictive measures in infectious diseases acts in Nordic countries.