The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care?

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Marc D Ginsberg
{"title":"The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care?","authors":"Marc D Ginsberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 2","pages":"196-228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
极端(和近乎极端)局部性规则持续存在!为什么继续忽视现代医学并扭曲护理标准?
用地方性规则来界定或修改医疗标准与现代医学不符。尽管如此,美国的许多州仍然坚持地方规则。本文通过关注爱达荷州、内布拉斯加州、田纳西州和阿肯色州,重新审视了我以前写过的这个主题。论文的结论是建议应取消地方规定,而采用国家护理标准。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cannabis in the Clink: An Argument in Favor of Medical Marijuana for Disabled Inmates. Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's "Don't Say Gay" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Rest in the Mourning: Navigating Assisted Suicide and Autonomy. The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care? Splitting Equality: Access to Gender-Affirming Care in the Fourth Circuit.
×
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:604180095
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