Directive

About: Directive is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5695 publications have been published within this topic receiving 56084 citations.

Lost in Translation: The Unintended Consequences of Advance Directive Law on Clinical Care

Abstract: This article reviewed advance directive legal statutes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia and identified the following potential barriers to end-of-life care planning: poor readability,...

Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: A meta-analysis of 89 journal articles

Abstract: The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is arguably the most ambitious piece of European Union (EU) legislation in the field of water. The directive defines a general framework for integrated river basin management in Europe with a view to achieving “good water status” by 2015. Institutional novelties include, among others, water management at hydrological scales, the involvement of nonstate actors in water planning, and various economic principles, as well as a common strategy to support EU member states during the implementation of the directive. More than 15 years after the adoption of the WFD, and with the passing of an important milestone, 2015, we believe it is time for an interim assessment. This article provides a systematic review of existing scholarship on WFD implementation. We identify well-documented areas of research, describe largely unchartered territories, and suggest avenues for future studies. Methodologically, we relied on a meta-analysis. Based on a codebook of more than 35 items, we analyzed 89 journal articles reporting on the implementation of the directive in EU member states. Our review is organized around three major themes. The first is “who, when, and where”; we explore publication patterns, thereby looking into authors, timelines, and target journals. The second is “what”; we analyze the object of study in our source articles with a particular focus on case study countries, policy levels, the temporal stage of WFD implementation, and if the directive was not studied in its entirety, the aspect of the WFD that received scholarly attention. The third is “how,” i.e., theoretical and methodological choices made when studying the WFD.

Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive — making the links between habitat and aquatic biota

Abstract: 1.The European Commission published the Directive ‘Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy’ (Water Framework Directive) in December 2000. The Directive recognizes for the first time the importance of aquatic biota in assessing the quality of European fresh and marine waters. 2.Specific objectives of the Directive are to prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems. 3.The Directive is unique in setting ecological targets (‘high and good ecological status’) for surface waters and, in doing so, the Commission has recognized the need for an integrated approach to managing three of the components of aquatic habitats: water quality, water quantity and physical structure. 4.A series of ‘tasks’ required by the Directive aims to produce River Basin Management Plans, detailing Programmes of Measures to ensure that all rivers achieve at least ‘good ecological status’ by 2015. 5.The River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System (RIVPACS) influenced the drafting of the Directive, with the concept of a reference state and the selection of river typology variables. RIVPACS provides a more ecologically robust link between habitat variables and biological elements than some of the systems now enshrined in the Directive. 6.The real challenge posed by the Directive for ecologists and river managers alike will be to integrate the scientific studies on separate habitat components, such as flow, and single taxonomic groups such as salmonid fish, into a holistic view of the ecological status of river basins. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Resuscitating advance directives.

Abstract: Advance directives have not fulfilled their promise of facilitating decisions about end-of-life care for incompetent patients Many legal requirements and restrictions concerning advance directives are counterproductive Requirements for witnessing or notarizing advance directives make it difficult for patients to complete a written directive during a physician visit State laws that establish a hierarchy of family surrogates for incompetent patients who have not appointed a proxy are inflexible and may not apply to common clinical situations Advance directives would be more useful if they emphasized discussing end-of-life care with physicians rather than completing a legal document State laws should be revised to encourage patients to discuss advance directives with physicians and to complete them during an office visit Such patient-physician discussions about end-of-life care can lead to more informed patient decisions Procedures for written advance directives should be simplified Patients should be able to designate health care proxies through oral statements to physicians These reforms will encourage discussions between patients and physicians about advance directives and may lead to more informed decisions near the end of life