auf Deutsch

Critique of Patients Rights in Germany

19. August 2003: this Internet publication is a "Hearing": Please give comments to: walter.keim@gmail.com. Have I forgotten somebody on the list further down?

Patients rights are a reflection on human rights ¹ and can be found all over Europe and the developed countries of the world. To use the right of self determination (Article 2 (2) Basic Law: Right to life and physical integrity ²) also towards doctors, the health system and to contribute to realize patients rights, the following rights would be beneficial:
1. Right to access all documentation, without having to prove a special interest.
2. Right to get information on rights and how to complain.
3. Right to complain to an independent body without costs.
4. Right to a fair answer in reasonable time.
5. Correction of mistakes in patient documentation.
The Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union ³ includes Freedom of Information in Article 42 ³. the right to get to know documentation in Article 41 (2)³, right to complain in Article 43 ³ (Ombudsman) and the right to a fair answer in reasonable time in Article 41 (1)³ . On the basis of the Fundamental Rights of the EU Active Citizenship Network ⁴ has defined these rights for patients in the European Charter of Patients Rights ⁵ and monitors the development in Europe. The EU has 1979 proclaimed Patients Rights for Hospital Patients ⁶ and the WHO published 1994 general Patients Rights ⁷.

Article 10 of the Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine ⁸ secures the right to access to any documentation about own health. Access is also secured by Article 18 of the Comment 34 to Article 19 (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 (b) (iv) General Comment 14 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The realization of these rights by laws is shown for European countries: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm ¹ and Norway: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/no_laws.htm ⁹.

Why not in Germany?

I criticize and accuse:

A doctor from Gmünd because he refused to give access to patients documentation ¹⁰ and he did not answer for one year ¹¹.
The doctors chamber Nordwürttemberg, because this refusal was tolerated ¹² and the complaint ¹³ was misunderstood and the complainant given the blame ¹⁴. Here it was shown that doctors protect there own. Doctors chambers lack the independence to secure patients rights, i. e. those who decide on complaints could be fired if supporting patients too much. (An employee of the KV, who did not cover fraud payment¹⁵ was fired ¹⁶). The lawyer answering the complaint can not instruct a doctor according to § 2 (4) of the doctors code ¹⁷ . Therefore the patient lowest in hierarchy gets the blame.
The federal chamber of doctors (Bundesärztekammer), because no information is given ¹⁸ about the supervision through Landesärztekammer ¹⁹ and control by the minister of social affairs.
The chamber of doctors (Landesärztekammer) Baden-Württemberg, because it at last asked the doctor to give access ²⁰, but did not contribute to process the complaint (send from the ministry of social affairs)²¹ . Because their is no access to the communication between doctor and doctors chamber, their is no chance to find out who made the mistake. But I was prepared for that and refused the doctor to give information without my consent. Therefore it seems clear that informal self determination was violated ²². But because access is denied, this can not be proofed.
The ministry of social affairs of Baden-Württemberg only has legal supervision ²³, no supervision on facts. The complaint is misinterpreted ²⁴ and legal supervision not taken seriously ²⁵. The incomplete access to patient documentation is not dealt with, access to communication is denied. The supervision can not comment on what is actually done and in the legal questions self evident rights of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights (e. g. access) are violated.
The ministry of interior of Baden-Württemberg writes not to be the right address ²⁶ for The privacy complaint ²⁷. A legal instruction ²⁸ is not given, because only opinions are allowed ²⁹. A question about legal advice ³⁰ about the deficiency in the doctors code is not answered ³¹.
The authors of the Charter of Patients Rights 2002 ³² forgot the right to correct mistakes in patient documentation, which was mentions in Patients Rights in Germany" of 9./10. June 1999 ³³ .
According to the doctors professional code of 10. April 2003 only access to objective parts of patient documentation, see §10 (2): "no access to ... parts, containing subjective impressions and observations of doctors." The parliament of Baden-Württemberg did not change the doctors code to reflect the newest judgment (1 BvR 1130/98 ⁹⁴) of the constitutional court that the a reason has to be given for the denial of access. Therefore the doctors code only reflects court decisions 20 years old.
The prosecutor of the chamber of doctors in district Nordwürrtemberg is not independent enough to support patients rights ⁷⁹? (The court of the doctors chamber collects fees for the decision not to deal with a complaint ⁸⁰). Questions regarding schedule of fees were put forward.⁸¹ (pdf). The Doctors Chamber in Nordwürttemberg has hired Gernot Blessing to prosecute doctors who do not do their duties to respect patients rights. I had to complaint because I was denied access to documents and my complaint was not dealt with for 2 years. The doctors court denied access to files to cover up for the doctors chamber⁹⁸. In Italy 10 SS murderers where sentenced to jail for lifetime ¹ for bestial SS war crimes committed 12. August 1944 in Sant´Anna more than 60 years ago. But Germany does not extradite them to Italy. Public prosecutor Gernot Blessing in Stuttgart/Germany is not prosecuting them up to now. Therefore a sentence in Germany is hindered. The families of the victims are denied access to documents. Therefore I asked the doctors chamber if he is the right person to do the job?
Health insurance companies should help patients. But the AOK health insurance does not give access to documents and gives no information how to complain ³⁴ . An example is the complaint of 2. April 2000 ³⁵ . Hear the traditional paternalistic culture of administration ³⁶ was followed, not the rights the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU ³⁷ . In consequence the right to complain is forgotten ³⁸, when patients rights are described.
The parliament Landtag of Baden-Württemberg, because the answer ³⁹ of the committee of petitions is only a copy of the letter of the ministry ⁴⁰ . Therefore it is no surprise that the committee refuses access ⁴¹. Deficiencies of access rights and the need to adapt laws to European standard is not seen.
The parliament (Landtag) of Baden-Württemberg, because it was too avaricious ⁴²to give freedom of information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/petition_bw_3.pdf (much administration, not inconsiderable costs, "erheblicher Verwaltungsaufwand, nicht unerhebliche Kosten"). Therefore the human right of freedom of information ⁴³ is not given to citizens.
The parliament, government and administration denies Germans the right to get an answer from the administration. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ³⁷gives a right of access to documents (Article 42) and the Right to good administration (Article 41), i. e. answer fairly within a reasonable time. (see also "The European Codex of Good Administration ⁴⁴") German administration has no obligation to give reasons for its decisions and does not give these rights to its citizens. Suggestions to translate recommendations of the Council of Europe on freedom of information and patients rights have not been answered: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020106coe.htm ⁴⁵, http://wkeim.bplaced.net/filer/011223fischer.htm ⁴⁶ and http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/020214bmi.htm ⁴⁷. No reason is given.
The German parliament and government because laws from the Third Reich ⁴⁸are still in force. The allies declared Hitler's dictatorial government illegal, but forgot to abolish the laws Hitler made. Lawyers have a monopoly ⁵²about legal counselling according to the Law on legal advice ⁵¹(Rechtsberatungsgesetz ⁵⁰from 1935 ⁴⁹). In those days the law was given to exclude Jewish lawyers after they were expelled from the lawyers chamber and prevent that they give free advice. Even the press is obstructs from reporting on legal questions ⁵³. This law is challenged with help of a constitutional complaint ⁵⁴(amendment ⁵⁵of 5.May.2000) by a judge who was punished, because he gave free legal advice to friends. A Jew working for a voluntary organisation for integrating refugees was also punished, because of legal advice to Jewish immigrants. A complaint at the European Court of Human Rights was filed 13. November 2003. Consumers rights are violated.
The parliaments on federal and local level because the privileges for doctors⁵⁷ from Nazi times ⁵⁶ (Seek after ⁵⁸: "45% aller Ärzte waren NSDAP-Mitglieder", and "Hälfte der deutschen Ärzte ... Mitglieder der NSDAP"⁵⁹ : halfparten of doctors were Nazis) and lawyers bar (Percentage of NSDAP Members in legal system was 80%⁶⁰) is still kept. there is no rational reason why doctors and lawyers should have sovereignty functions (same legal rights as communities). A patient rights law and a lawyer client law should be given ⁶¹, to protect the rights of patients and lawyers clients, because both doctors chambers and bars do not give the rights of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU ³⁷ e. g. access see Article 41 ³⁷ (2) and the right to a fair answer within reasonable time see Article 41 ³⁷ (1).
The constitutional court refused to process the complaint http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v-klage_en.htm ⁶²on freedom of information and patients rights ⁶³without giving any reasons ⁶⁴ . The acknowledgement of human rights is only on paper. The acknowledgement of Article 1 (2) GG ²is not more than lip service (Lippenbekenntnis) ⁶⁵ . Germany was condemned in the case Vogt v. Deutschland ( - 7/1994/454/535 - EuGRZ 1995, 590 - ) to have violated Freedom of opinion by the European Court of Human Rights. But Germany does not respect this and tries to neglect this verdict. International law is not given precedence, as the constitution requires (Article 25 GG ²). The Fundamental Right of the of the EU ³⁷Charter, to get an answer giving a reason (Article 41), is removed by the constitutional court even ⁶⁷for petitions ⁶⁶. The European Court for Human Rights ruled that court decisions are to be fair ⁶⁸i. e. their has to be given a reason.
The federal parliament because the petition on patients rights ⁶⁹ was ceased ⁷⁰, without answering the human rights questions ⁷¹, the EU Charter and patients rights in the other European countries (apart from Norway).
The federal ministry of health does not see the need for improvement ⁷²to catch up with other European countries. The answer ⁷³ shows that old rules from predemocratic inspired judgments are still in force ⁷⁴.
German patients finance the most expensive health system per person the EU (ca. 225 billion € a year), but when it comes to the quality of the services Germany is on place 13 of 15 in EU: http://www.vz-nrw.de/SES79823442/doc1293A ⁷⁵ see also the experts report of German official panel of health experts 2000/2001: http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/gutacht/sogu00/kurzf00.pdf ⁷⁶, see also World Health Report 2000 ⁷⁷: Place 25 ⁷⁸ among industrialized countries. A health system so bad as the German system is available in EU for ca. 45 billions € (EURO) less. The best health system in EU (France) is still ca. 23 billions € (EURO) (ca. 1 % GNP) cheaper. Where remains the money, which does not come to patients as service, who is benefiting the system? Why do patients not change this system? Structural changes are necessary according to Transparency International and fight of corruption.
The German people and patients would be strong together, to achieve their rights but rests of the authoritarian era of the past are still accepted. The acknowledgement of human rights ⁹⁵Article 1 (2) GG is so far false and only lip service. But that's democracy: Do voters get what they deserve, because they did not choose better? Why are there so many people who accept that human rights are missing? Why is there not more engagement for own (human-)rights?

Questions:

Will the prosecutor of the chamber of doctors in the state Baden-Württemberg be independent enough to support patients rights ⁷⁹?

I proposed to the state parliament i Baden-Württemberg to improve the health system:

Law to protect patients rights and lawyer clients rights because the law provisions are difficult to find and not good enough.

Abolish Chambers of doctors see Imperial Law Gazette (Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl. I S. 1433, 13. December 1935), Lawyers bar see Imperial Law Gazette (13. December 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl I, 1470) and panel doctor cooperation ("kassenärztlichen Vereinigungen") see Imperial Law Gazette (Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl. 567, 8. August 1933), as public institutions ("state in state"), because there is no reasonable reason to empower the lobbyists of doctors and lawyers with public power.

Abolish Act on Legal Counselling (Rechtsberatungsgesetz ) of 13 December 1935 [RGBl. I 1478, BGBl. III 3 Nr. 303-12] to re-establish freedom in this field, which is common to the European area of freedom and existed in Germany before the dictator Adolf Hitler came to power.

Establish scientific research institutions to look at damages to victims of medical and lawyer activity, because there is no knowledge about this up to now.

Will self help groups be backed up in the public and be heard by the parliament? E. g. the "Allgemeiner Patienten-Verband e.V.": http://www.patienten-verband.de/⁶¹, the Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Notgemeinschaften Medizingeschädigter e.V.⁸² (Petition PDF-Format.) and victims of mistakes of doctors: http://www.geburtsschaden.de/ ⁸³und http://www.aerzte-pfusch.de/ ⁸⁴.

Will the WHO, promoting the "European partnership for patients rights and citizens’ empowerment ⁸⁵" , support patients rights? Unfortunately this programme seems to lack activity since 1999 ⁸⁶.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU gives Freedom of Information in Article 42, access to documents in Article 41 (2), the right to complain in Article 43 (Ombudsman) and the right to answers within reasonable time in Article 41 (1). The "European Codex of god Administration" defines latest two months to get an answer (Article 17). As EU-Citizen I would like to ask: How long will the EU Commission and the European Parliament (Courrier du Citoyen) look at that my human right of freedom of information and other fundamental rights of the EU Charter and the European Charter of Patients Rights ⁹¹ are violated. In other countries in Europe this is respected. I become a second class citizen travelling to Germany.

I refer to the "European Parliament resolution on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union (2000) (2000/2231(INI))" document A5-0223/2001. Point 3 "(n)otes that it is the particular responsibility of the European Parliament (by virtue of the role conferred on it under the new Article 7(1) of the Treaty of Nice) and of its appropriate committee to ensure (in cooperation with the national parliaments and the parliaments of the candidate countries) that both the EU institutions and the Member States uphold the rights set out in the various Chapters of the Charter" Will the petition http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_eu.htm be answered positive?

Will the European Convent solve these problems ⁹³ and give the Fundamental Rights of the Charter of the EU also for EU member states? According to Com 2002/0247 the "Union must build up an EU-wide area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights". How long will EU tolerate member states not respecting human rights ⁹⁵?

Walter Keim

E-mail: walter.keim@gmail.com
Support freedom of information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/foi.htm, http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_un.htm,
http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v-klage_en.htm
Support patients rights: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm#e-mail

Drafts, version: 0.0, Newest version.

Enclosure:

Patients Rights in Europe: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm
Basic Law Germany: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm
Charter der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union: http://www.sidiblume.de/info-rom/europa/2000c364_01.htm
Active Citizenship Network: http://www.activecitizenship.net/
European Charter of Patients Rights: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/european_charter.htm
EU 1979: Charta der Patientenrechte für Krankenhauspatienten: http://www.hope.be/07publi/publoth/Hospchart.htm
WHO hat 1994 allgemeine Patientenrechte proklamiert: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/patientrights.html
Article 10 des Übereinkommens über Menschenrechte und Biomedizin: http://book.coe.fr/conv/de/ets/164-de.htm#A-10
Patients Rigths in Norway: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/no_laws.htm.
Verweigerung der Einsicht in Arztunterlagen: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000606dg.htm
Ein Jahr lang keine Antwortet: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000719ab.htm
Bezirksärztekammer Nordwürttemberg 23.10.2000: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/001023bzak.pdf
19.7.2000: Klage an Bezirksärztekammer: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000719ab.htm
8.4.2001: An Bezirksärztekammer: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/010408bzak.htm
KV Abrechnungsbetrug: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,228591,00.html
Der Spiegel 52/2002: Kartell der Abzocker: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/kartell_der_abzocker.pdf
Ärztlichen Berufsordnung § 2 (4): http://www.bnf.de/originalia/mbo.html#BI2
Bundesärztekammer 2.10.2000: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/001002bak.htm#bak
Verbandsinterne Aufsicht der Bezirksärztekammer: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/001002bak.htm#010624
Landesärztekammer 12.06.01: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/010612abw.pdf
Klage an Sozialministerium: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/010509sb.htm
Selbstbestimmungsrecht verletzt und geschummelt: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000719dg.htm
An Sozialministerium: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/petition3_sbw.htm
Sozialministerium 26.10.01: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/011026sb.htm
Sozialministerium 16.10.01: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/011016sm.pdf
Innenministerium 16.08.00: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000816im.pdf
An Innenministerium 19.07.00: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/000719ib.htm
An Innenministerium 04.10.00: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/001004ib.htm
An Innenministerium: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/petition3_ibw.htm
An Innenministerium 20.07.00: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/000720ib.htm
Innenministerium 15.05.01: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/010515ib.txt
http://www.lebertransplantation.de/pdf/Patientenrecht.pdf
Patientenrechte heute: http://www.patientenunterstuetzung.de/Grundsaetzliches/patientenrechte_in_deutschland.htm
Petition: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition2.htm#petition
AOK 2.4.2002: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000402aok.pdf
Verfassungsbeschwerde: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v-klage.htm#hintergrund
Charta der Grundrechts der EU: http://www.sidiblume.de/info-rom/europa/2000c364_01.htm#art41
http://www.patientenrechte.de/mvpatientenrechte.html
Antwort auf Petition: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition3.htm#antwort
Sozialministerium Baden-Württemberg: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/020607sbw.pdf
http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/petition3_p2.pdf
Petition Informationsfreiheit: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_bw.htm#antwort
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/frei/12314/1.html
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/de/code2005_de.pdf
Europarat: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020106coe.htm
An Bundesaussenminister: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/011223fischer.htm
An Bundesinnenministerium: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/020214bmi.htm
http://www.forumjustizgeschichte.de/Zur_Veruntreuun.97.0.html
http://www.tacheles.wtal.de/aktuelles/hammel/rechtsberatungsgesetz2.asp
Law on Legal Advice 1935 (Rechtsberatungsgesetz): http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/de_legal_advice_law_overview.htm
http://www.tacheles.wtal.de/aktuelles/hammel/rechtsberatungsgesetz2.asp
Bundesgesundheitsministerium 20.08.00: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/000820bmg.pdf
Press is hindered by the Law on Legal Advice 1935 (Rechtsberatungsgesetz): http://www.gabnet.com/jus/rberg1.htm
Verfassungsbeschwerde Dr. Kramer: http://www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de/harry/view.asp?ID=110
Verfassungsbeschwerde Zusatz: http://www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de/harry/view.asp?ID=111
http://www.forumjustizgeschichte.de/Die_Entstehung.82.0.html
http://www.kvberlin.de/STFrameset165/index.html?/Homepage/publikation/archiv/kvbla0702/kvb0702u.html
http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/heesch.htm
http://www.kvberlin.de/STFrameset165/index.html?/Homepage/publikation/pk2002/pk061102.html
Umgang der Justiz mit NS-Vergangenheit: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/Umgang_der_Justiz_mit_ihrer_NS-Vergangenheit.htm#80
Patientenvereinigung: http://www.patienten-verband.de/
Constitutional Complaints Freedom of Information: 5 May 2002 http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v-klage.htm and 18. August 2005 http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/verfassungsbeschwerde-en.htm
Verfassungsbeschwerde: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v-klage.htm#patienten
Bundesverfassungsgericht: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/020621bvg.pdf
Berufsverbote: http://www.berufsverbote.de/docs/hh-dammann.html
Bundesverfassungsgericht:http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/030310bvg.htm
Bundesverfassungsgericht: http://dejure.org/gesetze/rechtsprechung/Hollerlanderschliessung.html
http://www.justizskandale.de/1/schoeler_bverfg.html
Petition Patientenrechte: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4.htm
Landtag Baden-Württemberg: Antwort auf Petition: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4.htm#antwort
Petition: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4.htm#menschenrechte
Petition: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4_bgm.htm
Bundesministerium der Gesundheit: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/030314bgm.pdf
Bundesministerium der Gesundheit: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/030428bgm.htm
http://www.vz-nrw.de/SES79823442/doc1293A
Sachverständigenrates 2000/2001: http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/gutacht/sogu00/kurzf00.pdf
World Health Report 2000: http://www.who.int/whr/2001/archives/2000/en/index.htm
WHO Health ranking: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Kammeranwalt: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020322ab.htm
Landtag Baden-Württemberg: Petition 13-1413: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/L-BW-Petition_13-1413.htm
Gebührenordnung: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/Gebuehrenordnung.htm
Notgemeinschaft Medizingeschädigter e.V: http://www.bag-notgemeinschaften.de/Petition/petition.html
http://www.geburtsschaden.de/
http://www.aerzte-pfusch.de/
Europäischer Partnerschaftsverbund für Patientenrechte und die Befähigung der Bürger zum selbstbestimmten Handeln: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7193/1234/b
Patients Rights in Europe: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patienten.htm#WHO_1997
http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020418eu.htm
http://wkeim.bplaced.net/330166.htm
Petition to EU Parliament: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_eu.htm
Courrier du Citoyen 23. February 2002: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020823eu.htm
European Charter of Patients Rights: http://www.activecitizenship.net/content/blogcategory/32/77/
Lage der Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union (2000) (2000/2231(INI)): A5-0223/2001
Petition 25. April 2002: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/020427eu.htm
Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) 1 BvR 1130/98 vom 16.9.1998: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/text/rk19980916_1bvr113098
Violations of Human Rights in Germany: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/de_human_rights.htm
Complaint to chamber of doctors in the state Baden-Württemberg: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/0502ab.htm
Public Prosecutor Gernot Blessing: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/blessing-en.htm
The doctors court denied access to files to cover up for the doctors chamber: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/0511labw-en.htm

Support the Rights of Patients by E-Mail to the Federal Government in Germany

Many countries in the EU have laws securing the Rights of Patients. Germany is one of the countries in the EU without such a law. In order to keep up with the international development a law on patients' rights should also be adopted in Germany.

Support a German Patients' Rights Law, by the following E-Mail to the German Government (click here):
I support the call to the German Government for securing the rights of patients by law.
I suggest to implement the European Charter of Patients Rights http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/european_charter.htm and the "Recommendation Rec (2000) 5 of the Council of Europe on the development of structures for citizen and patient participation in the decision-making process affecting health care": http://www.social.coe.int/en/qoflife/recomm/R(00)5.htm .
(You may change the text according to your needs).

Support the Rights of Patients by E-Mail to the European Commission with a copy to the European Parliament.

Many countries in the EU have laws or charters securing the Rights of Patients. But minimum standards are lacking. In order to give all citizens in Europe a minimum of patients rights and to keep up with the international development patients rights should be strengthened in EU member states.

Support Patients rights, by the following E-Mail to the European Commission (click here):
I support the call to the European Commission for securing the rights of patients.
As a guideline I suggest to use European Charter of Patients Rights http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/european_charter.htm and the "Recommendation Rec (2000) 5 of the Council of Europe on the development of structures for citizen and patient participation in the decision-making process affecting health care": http://www.social.coe.int/en/qoflife/recomm/R(00)5.htm .
(You may change the text according to your needs).

Visitor No. since 11. November 2003

[Back to all Petitions] [Patients Rights in Europe] [Freedom of Informationsfreiheit] [Human Right Violations in Germany] [Homepage]

Freedom of Information in Europe: