[Health state assessment in people sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty].

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the health state of people sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty makes up a significant percentage of cases annually elaborated in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences. The analysis of such cases was accomplished to point out the difficulties that expert physicians could encounter in formulating their opinions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis involved 1051 medico-legal opinions issued in the years 2004-2013, considering the health state of people performing the duty of free, controlled social labor. The authors collected data on age, sex, type of diseases and the ability to control social work of convicted subjects.

RESULTS: Among those sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty the men aged 51-60 were in the majority. Individuals able to work only in specified conditions were the most numerous group (56.3%). People able to work in all conditions were the smallest set (9.5%). Light work was the type of work most frequently recommended to the persons able to work only in specific conditions (58.4%). The largest group of diseases comprised spondylopathies and osteoarthropathies (51.4%). It was followed by the group of cardiac diseases and angiopathies, including hypertension (38.7%).

CONCLUSIONS: The number of cases concerning the ability of the sentenced persons to serve the penalty of restriction of liberty annually elaborated in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences and the number of sentences imposed on the national scale indicate that medical experts may be obliged to provide opinions of this kind. Assessment of the health state of people sentenced to the penalty of restriction of liberty in some cases can be a difficult task for the expert physicians because of frequent lack of information about a specific type of work performed by the sentenced persons having only the data about their diseases. Med Pr 2016;67(6):765-775.