Lessons from Re Teo: Unconventional Practice and the National Law.

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-01
Cameron Stewart, Ian Freckelton
{"title":"Lessons from Re Teo: Unconventional Practice and the National Law.","authors":"Cameron Stewart, Ian Freckelton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This section explores the decision of the New South Wales Professional Standards Committee, in Re Teo [2023] NSWMPSC 2. The case provides insights into how the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) regulates practitioners who practise outside of conventional practice. The section compares the decision to similar cases and then concludes with a proposal that an express policy on unconventional practice is needed in Australia.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 3","pages":"520-537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This section explores the decision of the New South Wales Professional Standards Committee, in Re Teo [2023] NSWMPSC 2. The case provides insights into how the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) regulates practitioners who practise outside of conventional practice. The section compares the decision to similar cases and then concludes with a proposal that an express policy on unconventional practice is needed in Australia.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Re Teo 案的教训:非常规做法与国家法律》。
本节探讨了新南威尔士州专业标准委员会在 Re Teo [2023] NSWMPSC 2 一案中做出的裁决。 本案深入探讨了 2009 年《保健执业者监管国家法律法案》(昆士兰州)如何监管非传统执业的执业者。本节将该判决与类似案例进行了比较,最后提出澳大利亚需要一项关于非常规执业的明确政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Challenging Pandemic Law: From Vaccine Mandates to Judicial Review of Vaccine Approvals. Cystic Fibrosis and the Law: The Ramifications of New Treatments. Denial of Desire for Death in Dementia: Why Is Dementia Excluded from Australian Voluntary Assisted Dying Legislation? Informed Consent and the Duty to Warn: More than the Mere Provision of Information. Insight and the Capacity to Refuse Treatment with Electroconvulsive Therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1