Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

4548 results in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics & past titles

Page 195 of 228

  • Confessions of a Diehard: A Reply to Leslie Rothenberg

  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 150-184
    Print publication:
    September 1982
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Damage Remedies and Institutional Reform: The Right to Refuse Treatment

  • Barry R. Furrow
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 152-157
    Print publication:
    September 1982

  • The articulation by a court of a new constitutional norm serves a valuable function: the right, as elaborated by judicial opinion, provides a standard for critically evaluating current social practices. The “right to refuse treatment,” that “newly created constitutional right of personal autonomy,” draws attention to the problems of institutionalized mental patients and their desires to make their own decisions to accept or reject drug therapies, particularly where severe side effects are involved. The enunciation of the right to refuse treatment, with its hard-edged overtones, forces us to look at the tension created by the conflict between institutional attempts to treat these patients, the sometimes antithetical desire of those within the institution to control them without regard for treatment impact, and the patient's desire to retain whatever control is left to him in such settings.

    The right to refuse treatment-like its common law analogue in tort, informed consent doctrine-draws its roots from concepts of personal autonomy that pervade both tort doctrine and constitutional law.

  • Health Law Teachers and ASLM: A New Alliance

  • Julie Canny
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 175-188
    Print publication:
    September 1982

  • In an effort to broaden its scope in the area of medicolegal education, the Executive Committee of the American Society of Law & Medicine voted in Cktober 1981 to establish a Health Law Teachers Section for its members who teach health law related courses in any school of law, medicine, public health, health administration, or nursing.

    Angela R. Holder, J.D., LL.M., Treasurer of the Society and Counsel for Medicolegal Affairs and Associate Professor at Yale University School of Medicine, recommended that the Society expand its efforts to assist multidisciplinary individuals who share a common interest—education. While the Society was a co-sponsor of a 1980 Health Law Teachers Workshop, chaired by George J. Annas, J.D., M.P.H., of Boston University School of Medicine, the Society had not given formal, organized attention to the specialized needs of health law teachers.

  • Allied Health Professionals and Hospital Privileges: An Introduction to the Issues

  • John D. Grad
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 165-167
    Print publication:
    September 1982

  • The concept of allied health professionals practicing in hospitals arouses the opposition of many in the medical establishment. What is the nature of this conflict, and how can it be resolved? This article gives an overview of the reasons that allied health professionals are demanding hospital privileges, as well as the reasons that such privileges are opposed by physicians. In the author's opinion, the medical establishment should learn to accept practice in hospitals by non-physician providers, and can expect considerable legal opposition if it does not.

    The first problem is to define what is meant by “allied health professional.” Generally, the term is applied to any health care provider who is not in the “MOD” group, which traditionally has included medicine (MD), osteopathy, and dentistry, although pursuant to certain federal regulations podiatry also falls within the MOD group. Thus, in a general sense, “allied health professionals” means everyone else who directly provides health care services.

  • Documentation of Patient Care: An Often Underestimated Responsibility

  • Jane Greenlaw
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 172-174
    Print publication:
    September 1982

  • There is increasing societal concern about retention and retrieval of information about individuals; advances in technology have enlarged the means for storing and communicating personal information. Not surprisingly, some of this concern is directed toward medical records. Questions have arisen about ownership of and access to medical records, as well as their content. This column focuses solely on some basic issues pertaining to the content of medical records.

    Information in a patient's medical record can be used as a basis for decisions concerning his insurance coverage or payments, employment, eligibility for educational or benefit programs, or the outcome of a lawsuit. Thus, the law generally recognizes the patient's right to control the access to his medical record by third parties.

    Because of the permanence and potential importance of a patient's medical record, health professionals frequently raise questions about what to include in the record, who should write in a patient's chart, where and how to make corrections, and how to document specific problems such as patient injury or concerns about the quality of care the patient is receiving.

  • More on the Role of Judges

  • Henry A. Beyer
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 184-185
    Print publication:
    September 1982
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Non-Treatment of Defective Infants: A Critical Note

  • Richard Sherlock
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 185-187
    Print publication:
    September 1982
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Catheters: A Matter of Negligence?

  • Le Sedlacek
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 5 / September 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, p. 187
    Print publication:
    September 1982
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Withholding Treatment from Newborns with Severe Birth Defects

  • John M. Freeman
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 3 / June 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, p. 98
    Print publication:
    June 1982
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Diminished Lives and Malpractice: Courts Stalled in Transition

  • Barry R. Furrow
  • Journal:
    Law, Medicine and Health Care / Volume 10 / Issue 3 / June 1982
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 April 2021, pp. 100-114
    Print publication:
    June 1982

  • Medicine is still largely a pre-Darwin, pre-Newton enterprise.. . . We do not yet understand the underlying mechanisms of the major illnesses which plague humanity, and therefore much of what is done in the treatment of illness must still be empirical, trial and error therapy. We are compelled by our limitations to resort to shoring things up, applying halfway technology, trying to fix things after the fact.

    The judicial debate continues to rage over the right of a child born suffering from genetic impairments to recover on his own behalf against a physician or laboratory which failed to give his parents correct information about the defect. These “wrongful life” suits are brought by parents on behalf of their child, who in most cases is born suffering from mental or physical defects which could have been detected by genetic screening. In contrast, “wrongful birth” suits are actions brought by parents of a child born as the result of a defendant’s negligence, seeking damages for either the costs incident to the unwanted pregnancy and birth of a normal child, or the costs related to the unexpected birth and care of an impaired child.

Page 195 of 228