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 1,603 records · Page 89Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Inherited medullary thyroid cancer and the duty to warn: revisiting Pate v. Threlkel in light of HIPAA.

Familial medullary thyroid cancer (FMTC) is one of the few autosomal dominant cancers for which genetic testing provides a clear medical indication for prophylactic and/or curative therapy, and for which prophylactic thyroidectomy, followed by thyroid hormone replacement, presents a relatively low morbidity risk. Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a particularly aggressive type of thyroid cancer, and screening by traditional biochemical markers yields a high proportion of advanced stage diagnoses in individuals from FMTC families. This is particularly hazardous since there are no curative systemic treatments for MTC. Genetic testing for germline mutations of the RET proto-oncogene provides a reliable method of identifying at-risk family members in those FMTC families in which a mutation has been identified in the proband. Prophylactic thyroidectomy in such at-risk family members has significantly reduced the proportion of advanced stage MTC diagnoses in MTC families. Since a clear medical benefit exists for genetic testing in family members, and a clear danger to family members exists in the absence of genetic counseling, establishing genetic diagnosis as standard of care has critical legal and ethical implications for medical providers caring for probands and family members. The "duty to warn," reinforced by the courts in the legal case of Pate v. Threlkel, may override recent confidentiality legislation, known as the HIPAA Privacy Rules, which came into effect April 12, 2003.

Carcinoma, Medullary↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccination requirements and lessons learned from conscientious objectors from conscription.

All jurisdictions in the US require proof of vaccination for school entrance. Most states permit non-medical exemptions. Public health officials must balance the rights of individuals to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children with the individual and societal risks associated with choosing not to vaccinate (i.e., claiming an exemption). To assist the public health community in optimally reaching this balance, this analysis examines the constitutional basis of non-medical exemptions and examines policies governing conscientious objection to conscription as a possible model. The jurisprudence that the US Supreme Court has developed in cases in which religious beliefs conflict with public or state interests suggests that mandatory immunization against dangerous diseases does not violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Accordingly, states do not have a constitutional obligation to enact religious exemptions. Applying the model of conscientious objectors to conscription suggests that if states choose to offer nonmedical exemptions, they may be able to optimally balance individual freedoms with public good by considering the sincerity of beliefs and requiring parents considering exemptions to attend individual educational counseling.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Medical student academic misconduct: implications of recent case law and possible institutional responses.

Recent case law has protected medical students found guilty of academic misconduct from severe sanctions by emphasizing due process and contractural rights. In light of this development, proactive approaches should be considered by medical schools. Faculty or administrators who have legal backgrounds are more likely to avoid breach of contract and violation of due process and should be appointed as hearing officers in cases of alleged academic misconduct. Finally, determination of a student's mental state (as defined in the MPC) by the hearing officer is a fair and rational method of determining what sanctions should be placed on medical students found to have cheated or plagiarized.

Judicial Role↗
PubMed1990

Impact of a required request law on vital organ procurement.

"Mandatory" or required request for donation of the organs of patients dying in hospitals has been promulgated as a means of increasing the rate of organ harvest and alleviating the critical shortage of transplantable organs. Although the federal and many state governments have passed legislation to make such requests compulsory, the efficacy of this approach has not been demonstrated. Examination of the experience at our trauma center and in this region, before and after the enactment of a "strong" required request law by the State of New Jersey, did not reveal a statistically significant change in organ procurement. We conclude that such laws are unlikely to achieve the desired result in the absence of fundamental changes in the attitudes of the public and treating physicians.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2000

Patient restraints. Protection for whom?

Healthcare providers often face the decision of whether to restrain a patient. If the patient suffers an injury based on the decision not to restrain, will the provider be held liable? Healthcare providers express concern about the legalities of using restraints to prevent patient injuries and about which circumstances would be considered appropriate to restrain patients. This article presents case law that delineates what standard of nursing care generally must be breached before nurses will be held liable for injury from the use or nonuse of restraints. Policies and guidelines for consideration by nurse executives in the use of patient restraints are presented.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Dworkin and Casey on abortion.

This article responds to two important recent treatments of abortion rights. I will mainly discuss Ronald Dworkin's recent writings concerning abortion: his article "Unenumerated rights: whether and how Roe should be overruled," and his book Life's Dominion. In these writings Dworkin presents a novel view of what the constitutional and moral argument surronding abortion is really about. Both debates actually turn, he argues, on the question of how to interpret the widely shared idea that human life is sacred. At the heart of the abortion debate is the essentially religious notion that human life has value which transcends its value to any particular person; abortion is therefore at bottom a religious issue. Dworkin hopes to use this analysis to show that the religion clauses of the First Amendment provide a "textual home" for a woman's right to choose abortion. I wish to scrutinize this suggestion here; I want to probe the precise consequences for abortion rights of such an understanding of their basis. I will argue that the consequences are more radical than Dworkin seems to realize. The other work I will examine here is the important 1992 Supreme Court decision on abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The controlling opinion in that case, written jointly by Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter, strongly reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, but also upheld most of the provisions of a Pennsylvania statute that had mandated various restrictions on abortion. The justices' basis for upholding these restictions was their introduction of a new constitutional standard for abortion regulations, an apparently weaker standard than those that had governed previous Supreme Court abortion decisions. I think there is a flaw in Casey's new constitutional test for abortion regulations, and I will explain, when we turn to Casey, what it is and why it bears a close relation to Dworkin's reluctance to carry his argument as far as it seems to go.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1992

HIV education and the law: a critical review.

So far, the law has been used more to limit than to encourage effective HIV education. In this article, I will discuss how the law has largely failed as a tool for compelling the government to educate effectively, and, indeed, has provided only lukewarm protection against the chilling effect of official ambivalence about explicit education. I will begin with a review of current approaches to HIV education and the education efforts of the first decade of the epidemic. I will conclude with a discussion of the role of courts and legislatures as health educators.

AIDS Serodiagnosis↗