Prescribing unapproved medical devices? The case of DIY artificial pancreas systems.

Q2 Social Sciences Medical Law International Pub Date : 2021-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-12 DOI:10.1177/0968533221997510
Joseph T F Roberts, Victoria Moore, Muireann Quigley
{"title":"Prescribing unapproved medical devices? The case of DIY artificial pancreas systems.","authors":"Joseph T F Roberts,&nbsp;Victoria Moore,&nbsp;Muireann Quigley","doi":"10.1177/0968533221997510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In response to slow progress regarding technological innovations to manage type 1 diabetes, some patients have created unregulated do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS). Yet both in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally, there is an almost complete lack of specific guidance - legal, regulatory, or ethical - for clinicians caring for DIY APS users. Uncertainty regarding their professional obligations has led to them being cautious about discussing DIY APS with patients, let alone recommending or prescribing them. In this article, we argue that this approach threatens to undermine trust and transparency. Analysing the professional guidance from the UK regulator - the General Medical Council - we demonstrate that nothing within it ought to be interpreted as precluding clinicians from initiating discussions about DIY APS. Moreover, in some circumstances, it may require that clinicians do so. We also argue that the guidance does not preclude clinicians from prescribing such unapproved medical devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"21 1","pages":"42-68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0968533221997510","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533221997510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

In response to slow progress regarding technological innovations to manage type 1 diabetes, some patients have created unregulated do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS). Yet both in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally, there is an almost complete lack of specific guidance - legal, regulatory, or ethical - for clinicians caring for DIY APS users. Uncertainty regarding their professional obligations has led to them being cautious about discussing DIY APS with patients, let alone recommending or prescribing them. In this article, we argue that this approach threatens to undermine trust and transparency. Analysing the professional guidance from the UK regulator - the General Medical Council - we demonstrate that nothing within it ought to be interpreted as precluding clinicians from initiating discussions about DIY APS. Moreover, in some circumstances, it may require that clinicians do so. We also argue that the guidance does not preclude clinicians from prescribing such unapproved medical devices.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开未经批准的医疗器械?DIY人工胰腺系统的案例。
为了应对1型糖尿病管理技术创新进展缓慢,一些患者创造了不受监管的DIY人工胰腺系统(DIY APS)。然而,无论是在英国还是在国际上,对于临床医生照顾DIY APS用户来说,几乎完全缺乏具体的指导——法律的、监管的或伦理的。对他们的专业义务的不确定性导致他们在与患者讨论DIY APS时非常谨慎,更不用说推荐或开处方了。在本文中,我们认为这种方法可能会破坏信任和透明度。通过分析英国监管机构——医学总委员会的专业指导,我们证明,其中没有任何内容应该被解释为阻止临床医生发起关于DIY APS的讨论。此外,在某些情况下,可能需要临床医生这样做。我们还认为,该指南并不排除临床医生开出此类未经批准的医疗器械的处方。
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
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the legislation enabling egg donation in Switzerland. Book review: Not What the Bus Promised: Health Governance After Brexit Accessing third-party research databases for criminal investigations: Enhancing legal protections and safeguarding public interests Book review: The Disability Bioethics Reader Book review: The Right to Be Protected From Committing Suicide
×
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