{"title":"A nursing home's good faith duty \"to\" care: redefining a fragile relationship using the law of contract.","authors":"M Armour","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82632,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University law journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"217-336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22141436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The right to health care, the social contract, and health reform in the United States.","authors":"C Cassel","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82632,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University law journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"53-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22141433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1993-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315198231-13
J. Katz
ion of the research question tends to objectify the person-patient.27 It does so to a significantly greater extent than in therapeutic interactions, even though similar problems of objectification arise in therapeutic settings when doctors attend too much to the disease of the body in the bed and not to the person before them. The readiness with which clinical research continues to be viewed as an extension of clinical practice, both similarly grounded in the millennia-long Hippocratic commitment to the welfare of the individual patient, overlooks the transformation of medical practice since the age of medical science. Throughout most of medical history, research was limited to careful bedside observation of the effects of innovative treatments, with the interests of the individual patient as a polestar. In today's world, on the other hand, the interests of patient-subjects may yield to varying extents to the interests of science. This revolutionary development has not been accompanied by a thoroughgoing re-examination of physicians' ethical obligations in a postHippocratic age. Examples in point are the many cooperative clinical trials, generally randomized clinical trials (RCTs),30 in which institutions throughout the 27. See infra note 66 and accompanying text. 28. In a conversation between a senior physician and a medical intern, the former asked how much the intern knew about "patients as human beings." The question led to a rather nonproductive exchange which the intern ended abruptly with the exasperated comment: "I cannot answer your questions. You're interested in patients. I'm interested in the disease in the body in the bed." RAYMOND S. DUFF & AUGUST B. HOLLINGSHEAD, SICKNESS AND SOCIETY 128 (1968). 29. Medical practice has become transformed in other ways as well which should have led to greater involvement of patients in the medical decision-making process: Medicine's recent ascent from empiricism to science has brought forth spectacular technologic advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Today the numerous options available for the treatment of many diseases allow patients greater choice. Moreover, the introduction into medicine of scientific reasoning, aided by the results of carefully conducted research, permits doctors to be more discriminating between knowledge, ignorance and conjecture in their recommendations for or against a treatment. For the first time in medical history, it is possible, even medically and morally imperative, to give patients a voice in medical decision making; possible, because knowledge and ignorance can be better specified; medically imperative, because a variety of treatments are available, each of which can bestow benefits or inflict harm; morally imperative, because patients, depending on the lifestyle they wish [to lead) after treatment, must be given a choice. Duty and Caring, supra note 20, at 189. 30. The randomized clinical trial (ReT) is generally regarded as the gold standard for th
{"title":"Human experimentation and human rights.","authors":"J. Katz","doi":"10.4324/9781315198231-13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315198231-13","url":null,"abstract":"ion of the research question tends to objectify the person-patient.27 It does so to a significantly greater extent than in therapeutic interactions, even though similar problems of objectification arise in therapeutic settings when doctors attend too much to the disease of the body in the bed and not to the person before them. The readiness with which clinical research continues to be viewed as an extension of clinical practice, both similarly grounded in the millennia-long Hippocratic commitment to the welfare of the individual patient, overlooks the transformation of medical practice since the age of medical science. Throughout most of medical history, research was limited to careful bedside observation of the effects of innovative treatments, with the interests of the individual patient as a polestar. In today's world, on the other hand, the interests of patient-subjects may yield to varying extents to the interests of science. This revolutionary development has not been accompanied by a thoroughgoing re-examination of physicians' ethical obligations in a postHippocratic age. Examples in point are the many cooperative clinical trials, generally randomized clinical trials (RCTs),30 in which institutions throughout the 27. See infra note 66 and accompanying text. 28. In a conversation between a senior physician and a medical intern, the former asked how much the intern knew about \"patients as human beings.\" The question led to a rather nonproductive exchange which the intern ended abruptly with the exasperated comment: \"I cannot answer your questions. You're interested in patients. I'm interested in the disease in the body in the bed.\" RAYMOND S. DUFF & AUGUST B. HOLLINGSHEAD, SICKNESS AND SOCIETY 128 (1968). 29. Medical practice has become transformed in other ways as well which should have led to greater involvement of patients in the medical decision-making process: Medicine's recent ascent from empiricism to science has brought forth spectacular technologic advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Today the numerous options available for the treatment of many diseases allow patients greater choice. Moreover, the introduction into medicine of scientific reasoning, aided by the results of carefully conducted research, permits doctors to be more discriminating between knowledge, ignorance and conjecture in their recommendations for or against a treatment. For the first time in medical history, it is possible, even medically and morally imperative, to give patients a voice in medical decision making; possible, because knowledge and ignorance can be better specified; medically imperative, because a variety of treatments are available, each of which can bestow benefits or inflict harm; morally imperative, because patients, depending on the lifestyle they wish [to lead) after treatment, must be given a choice. Duty and Caring, supra note 20, at 189. 30. The randomized clinical trial (ReT) is generally regarded as the gold standard for th","PeriodicalId":82632,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University law journal","volume":"38 1 1","pages":"7-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70636844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy.","authors":"K G Biagi","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82632,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University law journal","volume":"35 2","pages":"433-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24994692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：