Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Legal Approach”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Physicians and genetic malpractice.

Primary care physicians are unprepared for the increase in demands for prenatal genetic testing. Often, they do not possess the necessary knowledge, skills or attitudes to provide genetic counselling. Yet, since the demand for prenatal genetic services is growing faster than the number of genetic professionals, the responsibility of genetic counselling will fall to these physicians. Physicians who lack genetic literacy may find themselves the targets of lawsuits for wrongful birth and wrongful life. Wrongful birth and wrongful life claims (in the context of genetics) both assert that but for the physician's negligence, the handicapped child would not have been born. Such medical malpractice suits against physicians exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. This paper discusses the case law on wrongful birth/life cases in these four countries. The authors conclude that as the number and availability of prenatal genetic tests increases, so too will the number of genetic malpractice claims, unless the education of physicians and medical students in genetics is promoted, possibly with the Internet as the new educational paradigm.

Australia↗
PubMed2002

The Bioethics Convention of the Council of Europe and organ sharing for transplant recipients in Scandinavia.

Even though organ transplantation is often life saving, the lack of donor organs is limiting the number of transplantation procedures. In small countries, like the Scandinavian countries, the small population level highlights this problem of organ availability which is further complicated by the fact that the utilisation of available organs may be prevented by histoincompatibility between the host and donor. This problem can only be solved by sharing both medical information and organs across countries. In Scandinavia, an organ sharing program (Scandiatransplant) was initiated between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in the late 1960's long before the establishment of European Economic Area and the expansion of the European Union in Northern Europe. Even though trade in human organs is prohibited by international conventions, medical procedures and services that are associated with transplant activities are such services whose "free movement" within the Union is guaranteed by the Convention of Rome. These services can thus be offered across the national borders for remuneration. The potential impact of the conventions of the Council of Europe on transplantation services and organ sharing programs within European Union will be discussed.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2005

In the matter of Christine B. Biersach. In the Ohio Court of Appeals.

HOLDING: Before withdrawal of tube feeding may be permitted, a guardian must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the treating and consulting physicians' education, training, and experience; the physician's history and experience with the patient; the fact that the physician personally examined the patient; and the opinions required by statute. Each physician should also testify to his opinion that the other physician in the matter is qualified, by reason of advanced education or training, limited practice, experience, or certification as a specialist, to make the findings and provide the opinions about the patient which are required by the statute. The consulting physician's opinion should be more than a conclusory adoption of the attending physician's opinion. Rather, it should be independently stated and, ideally, should include the reasons upon which it is based.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Pettis v. Smith and Braddock. In the Louisiana Court of Appeal.

HOLDING: Tube feeding may be withheld or withdrawn from a person in a persistent semi-conscious state even though her living will did not explicitly decline tube feeding, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of her intention to decline tube feeding.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed2005

Charting a course through difficult legislative waters: tribunal decisions on life-sustaining measures.

Since the enactment in Queensland of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) and the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), a decision can be made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult who lacks capacity to make such decisions for herself or himself. The Guardianship and Administration Tribunal of Queensland has been asked to consider the law in relation to these decisions on a number of occasions since the legislation was passed. This article explores the relevant provisions of these statutes and some of the difficulties that arise from how they are currently drafted. It also examines how the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal has dealt with applications to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining measures, and suggests a course that might avoid some of the difficulties that are inherent in Queensland's legislative regime.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a liberal approach versus the traditional moral view.

Within the context of the debate over the recent suspended sentence given to John Stuart Godfrey by Underwood J in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for assisting his elderly mother with her suicide, this article examines some of the more popular arguments for and against the moral acceptability of euthanasia and assisted suicide. This article considers the arguments put forward on the "difference principle" by Rachels and Nesbitt before critically examining the liberal approach to the euthanasia issue as proposed by Kuhse. It is argued that whilst Kuhse is correct to reject the difference principle, she does so for the wrong reasons. The penultimate section of the article provides an overview of the traditional moral view against killing. The final part assesses whether the arguments put forward by proponents of the liberal approach are capable of overcoming this view.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

I want my information back: evidentiary privilege following the partial birth abortion cases.

In February 2004, privacy concerns captured the public's attention when the United States government, the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, sought to subpoena the medical records of patients receiving intact dilation and extraction (also known as "partial birth") abortions in six different hospitals and six Planned Parenthood centers across the country. Three different federal court cases explored the enforceability of the subpoenas. This Note explores the rationales used by the three courts in examining the privacy interests involved. It then suggests some possible solutions for systematically protecting medical information: a legal solution; a technological solution; and a combination of both. The legal solution involves creating a federal physician-patient privilege, similar to that enforced in many states and parallel to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. The technological solution requires the complicity of multiple jurisdictions to verify the necessity of revealing medical information. Taken together, these solutions can assist the government in protecting its citizens by imposing more checks on itself.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed2005

Deference or deliberation: rethinking the judicial role in the allocation of healthcare resources.

The development of strategies by which healthcare resources are explicitly rationed has created significant challenges for many governments. In particular, those undertaking allocative decisions may struggle to establish sufficient legitimacy to enable them to make choices which are morally and politically controversial without generating distrust and resistance, which could jeopardise the effectiveness of the decision-making regime. This article considers possible means of addressing this difficulty from the perspective of public law. The mechanism which is currently favoured, most clearly seen in the UK, is to establish regulatory agencies which apply scientific and social-scientific methodologies to priority-setting questions. This has not been entirely successful. Accordingly, the article will propose a more developed role for courts, which can require that reasoned, relevant justifications for allocative choices are offered and thus provide a foundation for broad public deliberation on rationing. However, in order to fulfil such a function, the judiciary will need to modify its traditionally deferential stance on issues of this type. South African and Canadian cases illustrate how such a change may come about.

Health Care Rationing↗
PubMed2005

Protecting the unborn clone: can law and science evolve together?

The courts have treated the unborn child as neither person nor property. Human cloning will challenge this legal principle. Human cloning provides options for future scientific development and treatment of disease and infertility. However, cloning gives rise to issues not yet considered, in law, let alone resolved. These issues are not present in the context of normal human birth. At present, the common law restricts its scope to normal human birth. Does the donor "own" their unborn clone? Who makes decisions on behalf of the unborn clone? The gap between science and law is too large in human cloning research. Law lags behind in adapting to new technologies. This paper will address legal issues in relation to the unborn clone. Cloning will challenge the law in its current state. Decision-making and control of the unborn child are vital issues, to be determined before human cloning can be permitted to take place. The individuals who might have an interest in the unborn clone include the donor, the scientist, who either developed the finished clone or stored the clone prior to implantation, and the surrogate mother. Claims or conflicts might arise in many areas of medicine and law. Does the scientist have an intellectual property right? Can the surrogate mother terminate the pregnancy at will? If the unborn clone is not aborted, what measures are required to protect the fetus? Can the surrogate mother be liable for neglect? Who decides about disclosure of information and knowledge or choice regarding fetal diagnosis and treatment? Who has custody of the unborn clone? In this paper, the concepts of trusts are explored to develop a means of resolving conflicts among the individuals who might claim an interest in the unborn clone. The trust doctrine is flexible and may be useful in resolving claims or conflicts.

Civil Rights↗