Poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije o izvajanju nalog državnega preventivnega mehanizma za leto 2011 Implementation of the Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2011 Delivery of registered items Vročanje priporočenih pošiljk Ko poštar prinese sklep sodišča, ga pacientu vroči osebje PB Begunje. Direktor hkrati dobi obvestilo, da je sklep prispel sodišča. Težava je le takrat, ko prejemnik noče podpisati, da je prejel pošiljko. Vendar ga k podpisu ne silijo. Če pacient pošiljke ni sposoben sprejeti, npr. zaradi demence, mu takšno pisanje sicer dajo, vendar on tega dejansko ne more sprejeti. Osebje bolnišnice se sprašuje, čemu sploh dajati takšnemu pacientu v podpis vročilnico. S pomisleki se strinjamo. Ne gre le za to, da pacient zaradi zdravstvenega stanja ni sposoben razumeti pomena vročitve in vsebine dokumenta, ampak z dnem »vročitve« lahko začnejo teči tudi roki, ki imajo zanj ali njegovo premoženje lahko daljnosežne posledice. Zato bi bilo smiselno, da bi se takšnemu pacientu v sodelovanju s pristojnim centrom za socialno delo (CSD) postavil skrbnik (kolikor ga še nima), ki bi ga bolnišnica o vročitvi nemudoma obvestila. Zato smo predlagali, da PB Begunje s pacientom, ki ni sposoben razumeti vsebine in pomena vročene pošiljke, nemudoma seznani pristojni CSD, ki mu bo postavil skrbnika. Nato lahko s prispelo priporočeno pošiljko seznani skrbnika, ki mora skrbeti za pravice in interese oskrbovanca. When the postman delivers a court decision, the personnel of PB Begunje deliver it to the patient. At the same time, the manager receives a notification that a court order has arrived. A problem may arise if the recipient refuses to sign the receipt for the post. However, the patient is not pressed to sign. If the patient is not able to accept the post, e.g. due to dementia, the letter is given to them, but in fact they are unable to receive it. The hospital personnel wonder why such patients are requested to sign the return receipt. We agree with the considerations. This is not only a matter of the patient’s medical condition preventing him or her from understanding the meaning of the delivery and contents of the document; some time limits that may have long-term consequences for the patient and his or her property may begin on the date of delivery. It would thus be reasonable to provide such a patient, in cooperation with the competent social work centre (SWC), with a custodian (if he or she does not have one) to be notified immediately by the hospital of a delivery. We proposed that PB Begunje promptly inform the competent SWC of any patient who is not able to understand the contents and meaning of the delivered post, which should assign a custodian to the patient. The custodian, who has to provide for the rights and interests of the person entrusted to him or her, can later be informed of the arrival of registered post. Obveščanje v primeru pridržanja Notification in case of detention Obvestilo sodišču PB Begunje pošlje po pošti (z navadno pošto). Sodišče je potrdilo, da je to zanje sprejemljivo, in od takrat tako ravnajo. Rok za obvestilo, kot ga določa ZDZdr, bolnišnica šteje od trenutka pridržanja pacienta. V štirih urah mora zdravnik obvestilo o pridržanju oddati v pisarno bolnišnice, kjer poskrbijo za odpošiljanje obvestila sodišču. Vendar običajno traja več ur ali konec tedna celo več dni, da pošiljko res prevzame pošta. Med delavniki je to zjutraj, ob koncu tedna pa obvestilo čaka na prvi delovni dan. Bolnišnica direktorja o pridržanju obvesti v štirih urah, vendar mu v tem roku zgolj pusti sporočilo o pridržanju na njegovi mizi v pisarni. Tudi v tem primeru lahko traja več ur ali celo dni, ko direktor obvestilo dejansko prejme. Če je bil nekdo pridržan v petek popoldne, prejme direktor obvestilo po navadi šele v ponedeljek zjutraj. PB Begunje je pojasnila, da bodo tudi zastopnike obveščali po pošti, vendar njihovih naslovov še nimajo, le telefonske številke. The court notifies PB Begunje by regular mail. The court found this acceptable and the hospital has done accordingly since. The hospital counts the notification time limit as specified by ZDZdr from the time of the patient’s detention. Within four hours, the doctor must submit the notification on detention to the hospital’s office, where delivery to the court is taken care of. However, it usually takes several hours, or even days during weekends, for the item to be posted. During working days, the notification is posted in the morning, and at weekends, it waits for the first working day. The hospital notifies the manager on the detention within four hours, but only a notification on detention is put on the table in his office in this period. Also in this case, it may be several hours or even days before the manager actually receives the notification. If someone has been detained on Friday afternoon, the manager does not usually receive the notification before Monday morning. PB Begunje explained that the representatives would be notified by mail, but the hospital still does not have their addresses, only telephone numbers. PB Begunje je pojasnila, da je način obveščanja, kot ga določa ZDZdr, neustrezen in dejansko neizvedljiv. Zato so se pred časom obrnili na Ministrstvo za zdravje in predlagali, da direktor za obveščanje sodišča pooblasti posamezne zdravnike. Ministrstvo na predlog Bolnišnice ni imelo pripomb. Tudi PB Ormož je opozorila, da so predvsem glede obveščanja v ZDZdr predpisani roki neživljenjsko kratki. Ob sprejemih proti volji poskušajo vsakemu pacientu razložiti celoten postopek že v sprejemni ambulanti, pozneje pa še na oddelku, ko se pacient sam prepriča, kam je prispel. Tako naj bi ti pacienti pogosto potem prav na oddelku podpisali privolitev. Prekoračitev rokov, določenih v ZDZdr, je nedopustna. Člen 58 ZDZdr določa, da mora ob sprejemu na zdravljenje v nujnih primerih sprejemni zdravnik v štirih urah obvestiti direktorja psihiatrične bolnišnice. To seveda pomeni, da mora biti direktor v tem roku o sprejemu tudi dejansko obveščen (puščanje obvestila na mizi po naši presoji nikakor ne zadošča, da bi lahko šteli, da je bil direktor obveščen), saj s trenutkom prejema obvestila nastane njegova obveznost, da o sprejemu takoj obvesti pristojno sodišče. V PB Begunje je za obveščanje sodišča direktor pooblastil posamezne zdravnike. Če bi zaradi hitrosti (obveščanja) lahko sprejeli takšno ravnanje, pa to dejansko pomeni, da mora pooblaščeni zdravnik sodišče obvestiti TAKOJ po sprejemu pacienta na zdravljenje brez privolitve. Zato rok štirih ur za obveščanje po prepričanju DPM v tem primeru ne pride v poštev. Še več, zgolj puščanje obvestila v pisarni PB Begunje, kjer čaka, da bo oddano, ko pač bo, je povsem nesprejemljivo in v nasprotju z zakonom. Zato smo predlagali, da se PB Begunje s pristojnim sodiščem dogovori o načinu takojšnjega obveščanja, potem pa se naknadno lahko obvestilo pošlje 36 Državni preventivni mehanizem v Republiki Sloveniji po Opcijskem protokolu h Konvenciji OZN proti mučenju in drugim krutim, nečloveškim ali poniževalnim kaznim ali ravnanju PB Begunje explained that the method of notification as prescribed in ZDZdr is inappropriate and not really practicable. For this reason, they turned to the Ministry of Health some time ago and suggested that the director authorise certain doctors for the notification of the court. The Ministry had no objections to the hospital’s proposal. PB Ormož also stressed that the time limits as prescribed in ZDZdr concerning notification are unrealistically short. Upon admissions without consent, they try to explain to each patient the entire procedure in the reception dispensary, and later in the ward when the patient is assured of his or her whereabouts. Such patients then often sign the consent in the ward. Exceeding the time limits as specified in ZDZdr is inadmissible. Article 58 of ZDZdr sets out that the admitting doctor must inform the manager of the psychiatric hospital within four hours of the admission to urgent treatment. This means that the manager must actually be informed within this period (we believe that leaving a notification on the table does not constitute sufficient notification of the manager), as at the time of receipt of the notification his obligation arises to inform the competent court of the admission immediately. In PB Begunje, the manager authorised certain doctors to notify the court. If such conduct is to be accepted for reasons of speed (notification), it means that the authorised doctor must notify the court of the admission without consent IMMEDIATELY after admission. According to the DPM, in this case, the four-hour time limit for notification should not apply. Furthermore, merely leaving the notification in the office of PB Begunje to wait to be delivered whenever that so happens is completely unacceptable and illegal. We therefore suggested that PB Begunje agree with the competent court on the method of prompt notification; afterwards, the notification may be sent (also) by mail. National Preventive Mechanism in the Republic of Slovenia under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 37