澳大利亚临床伦理服务的法律责任:"我应该比现在更担心吗?

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-07-01
Sharon L Feldman, Carolyn Johnston
{"title":"澳大利亚临床伦理服务的法律责任:\"我应该比现在更担心吗?","authors":"Sharon L Feldman, Carolyn Johnston","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 2","pages":"345-357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Liability of Clinical Ethics Services in Australia: \\\"Should I Be More Worried Than I Am?\\\"\",\"authors\":\"Sharon L Feldman, Carolyn Johnston\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"345-357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"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}","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

摘要

临床伦理服务(CES)的一项重要职能是在具有伦理挑战性的病例中为医疗服务提供者提供决策支持。提交伦理咨询的病例很可能涉及意见分歧或冲突,或涉及适当医疗实践的界限。由于其争议性,此类病例还可能招致法律诉讼。随着 CES 在澳大利亚越来越普遍,本文探讨了 CES 及其成员的潜在法律责任。由于澳大利亚没有针对 CES 的诉讼报道,我们将借鉴国际经验和第一原则。通过将法律原则应用于假设的案例情景,我们考虑了过失索赔的前景,这是最有可能对 CES 提起的法律诉讼。我们的结论是,尽管目前不太可能胜诉,但作为伦理案例咨询对象的患者(和家属)可能会向 CES 提出过失索赔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Legal Liability of Clinical Ethics Services in Australia: "Should I Be More Worried Than I Am?"

A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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