Japanese Chikan Molest

vital treatment.

From Article 15 of our Constitution that has, as corollary, that in our legal system "deprivation of life itself or the acceptance of one's death is an act Law does not prohibit. " However, our Criminal Code which punishes itself or the necessary cooperation to suicide, but with penalties lower in the case of serious illness and the patient's explicit request. (See 143.4), and this referred only to active behaviors, not to ignore.

On the other hand, the patient has the right to refuse treatment, except in cases determined by law, primarily for reasons of Public Health. Other cases could be saved, in general, with the demonstration of patient, advance directives, the decision of family members, representatives, etc.. Even always stay the judge or the Prosecutor if you do not see clearly. In the absence of the foregoing, it is the doctor's urgent intervention valve that does not support delays and protected by the lex artis of the occasion. Left

clear that consent must be "as God commands," and is revocable as advance directives or living will, and always have first preference on the second if the patient, the meantime, he is able to manifest something and you accept the attending physician, who may well have doubts and would be back again to the judge or prosecutor. Apart

be dodging the crimes of omission of duty of care and failure to provide health care (arts. 195.1 and 196), and crimes of omission as criteria Article 11, which is to say you have a legal or contractual obligation to act. In this context, the physician should remember its obligation to "respect the decisions made freely and voluntarily by the patient."

Well, in this scenario of transition to death we can be with terminal states, vegetative state, severely disabled, etc. And here come into play, giving up artificially prolong life, anticipating death from side effects of a palliative treatment, or lead directly to death, and all from the consent, no consent or without consent, and so referred to living wills.
Beware that may appear
crimes of injury or lack of injuries and ill-treatment, even in cases that seek to alleviate suffering, wherever it occurs without the consent or let alone against their will.

other hand, non-device connection, if consensual, does not give rise to criminal conduct. Otherwise we're going to murder or refusing medical care. As for the disconnection of appliances can be compared to negligent conduct as described above, ie not connecting. But if the focus is as active as we return to the same thing: if there is consent and no offense if there is not. But this valid for the terminal, because if it is a chronic disability, with the consent would enter even consented to murder we cited at the beginning, Article 143.4, but would eventually be lawful under Article 20.7 which states that the duty to act, which also he is a doctor. Anyway, my advice is to " Stealer" urgency because there is no worth and speak the judge or the prosecutor. (By the way, are added in all the input expressions Judge / Judge, prosecutor / a, not going to fine me for nonsense).

What has not heard of anything? I not much, really, but the topic is interesting. In general, friends, prudence and good work, respect our work bidirectional. And remember that sometimes , "lesson asleep lesson" so to wait and not rush, and consult and seek help which is very useful.

Good morning.