澳大利亚的法定护理标准及其在实验性医疗实践中的应用。

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-07-01
Perry Peralta
{"title":"澳大利亚的法定护理标准及其在实验性医疗实践中的应用。","authors":"Perry Peralta","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical innovation is essential in the development and improvement of interventions used to treat medical conditions. In Australia, the States and Territories have statutorily reintroduced the Bolam principle in a modified form which provides a defence for medical practitioners who have practised in a manner that, at the time, was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. This article explores whether the standard could be successfully pleaded as a defence by experimental practitioners. In doing so, the obstacles to an experimental practitioner's ability to rely on the statutory defence are analysed. It finds that the standard effectively entrenches established practices without sheltering legitimate efforts to advance medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 2","pages":"390-409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Statutory Standard of Care in Australia and its Application to Experimental Medical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Perry Peralta\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical innovation is essential in the development and improvement of interventions used to treat medical conditions. In Australia, the States and Territories have statutorily reintroduced the Bolam principle in a modified form which provides a defence for medical practitioners who have practised in a manner that, at the time, was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. This article explores whether the standard could be successfully pleaded as a defence by experimental practitioners. In doing so, the obstacles to an experimental practitioner's ability to rely on the statutory defence are analysed. It finds that the standard effectively entrenches established practices without sheltering legitimate efforts to advance medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"390-409\"},\"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

临床创新对于发展和改进用于治疗疾病的干预措施至关重要。在澳大利亚,各州和地区以修改后的形式重新引入了博勒姆原则,该原则为执业医师提供了辩护理由,这些医师的执业方式在当时被澳大利亚同行专业舆论广泛认可为合格的专业执业方式。本文探讨了实验医师是否可以成功地将该标准作为辩护理由。在此过程中,文章分析了试验性从业者援引法定抗辩的障碍。文章发现,该标准有效地巩固了既有做法,而没有保护为推动医学发展所做的合法努力。
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
The Statutory Standard of Care in Australia and its Application to Experimental Medical Practice.

Clinical innovation is essential in the development and improvement of interventions used to treat medical conditions. In Australia, the States and Territories have statutorily reintroduced the Bolam principle in a modified form which provides a defence for medical practitioners who have practised in a manner that, at the time, was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. This article explores whether the standard could be successfully pleaded as a defence by experimental practitioners. In doing so, the obstacles to an experimental practitioner's ability to rely on the statutory defence are analysed. It finds that the standard effectively entrenches established practices without sheltering legitimate efforts to advance medicine.

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