patient.Surely this is an argument not for compliance but for concordance.Thirdly, they remind us that threats to the public health (posed, in their example, by non-compliant patients with open pulmonary tuberculosis) demand nothing less than strict compliance with drug treatment, in the public interest.There are similar examples from forensic mental health.Nothing in the concept of concordance asserts the necessary primacy of individual autonomy over the needs of society.In setting out our agenda of research, training, and public awareness, our working party was only too aware that we were not providing definitive answers to the problems caused by non-compliance in medicine taking.Rather, we wished to suggest a more productive way of asking the questions
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gossop et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: