Journal of law and health最新文献_第8页

Save Thousands of Lives Every Year: Resuscitate the Peer Review Privilege. 每年拯救成千上万的生命:重振同行评议特权。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2016-01-01

Alan G Williams

{"title":"Save Thousands of Lives Every Year: Resuscitate the Peer Review Privilege.","authors":"Alan G Williams","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"Doctors make mistakes--preventable medical mistakes--that kill or seriously injure patients. The best way to reduce these preventable errors is through a medical peer review process typically referred to as a \"morbidity and mortality conference.\" However, over the past twenty years, federal and state courts, state legislatures, and state voters have effectively gutted the morbidity and mortality conference (M+M) as a remedial and preventative tool, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. Doctors need our help restoring the effectiveness of M+Ms. Congress has created the means to do so; now, all the courts need do is use it. Otherwise, what has been happening over the last two decades will continue--physicians will fear the M+M, will either not participate in M+Ms or not participate fully, medical errors will not be thoroughly investigated and corrected, and the same preventable medical mistakes will continue to occur because physicians are scared if they admit during an M+M that they committed an error then, in a subsequent medical malpractice lawsuit, their admission will be used against them to prove negligence and liability. Part I of this essay summarizes the extent of the problem--many call it a crisis--of preventable deaths plaguing U.S. hospitals. Part II explains peer review, both in the context of physician credentialing/hiring and M+Ms, and the legal protections afforded under the provisions of immunity, confidentiality, and privilege. Part III discusses how federal and state court decisions, state legislative enactments, and voter initiatives have weakened existing protections for peer review, especially regarding M+Ms. Part IV describes the PSQIA and how it can--and should--be the solution to preventable hospital deaths. Part V concludes with a summation of the argument that courts employ the PSQIA privilege to protect M+Ms, and that physicians and hospitals do their part by fulfilling the requirements of the PSQIA such that they may invoke the privilege therein contained.","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"29 2","pages":"221-246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37071629","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}

引用次数: 0

Funding Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) for Working Aged Disabled Americans. 为工作年龄的美国残疾人提供长期服务和支持(LTSS)。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2016-01-01

Helen L Rapp

{"title":"Funding Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) for Working Aged Disabled Americans.","authors":"Helen L Rapp","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"There are a multitude of dilemmas faced today by over 3 million significantly disabled Americans, many of whom depend on Medicaid for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) in obtaining the services they need to simply live. While the landmark 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has done a lot to improve the lives of people with disabilities, the reality is that using Medicaid as the vehicle for funding LTSS places unreasonable restrictions on disabled people who want to live independent lives and be as successful as possible. The Federal Government must change funding for LTSS in order to provide disabled Americans with real choices regarding living arrangements and maximize their earning potential without fear of being deprived of support they cannot live without. Part II of this note provides background information on LTSS (what they are, who uses them, what they cost, and how they are currently funded). Part III examines the Medicaid Program and specifically Medicaid HCBS17 Waiver Programs, which provide the bulk of LTSS funding today. A brief history of the federal laws, amendments, and policies that have impacted Medicaid LTSS are provided. Part IV analyzes an alternative to Medicaid for LTSS funding for those working-age disabled individuals who would not otherwise be Medicaid eligible. This section specifically focuses on recommendations from the congressionally established Commission on Long-Term Care and a pilot program proposed by the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD). Finally, Part V concludes that the Federal government must take action to establish a stand-alone, non-Medicaid Program to provide LTSS for working-age disabled Americans who are capable of working and living independently.","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"29 2","pages":"302-326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37071632","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}

引用次数: 0

Quintavalle: The Quandary in Bioethics. 昆塔瓦莱:生命伦理学的困境。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2016-01-01

Lisa Cherkassky

引用次数: 0

Healer, Witness, or Double Agent? Reexamining the Ethics of Forensic Psychiatry. 治疗者，证人，还是双重间谍?重新审视法医精神病学的伦理学。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2015-07-09 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2614668

Matthew U. Scherer

{"title":"Healer, Witness, or Double Agent? Reexamining the Ethics of Forensic Psychiatry.","authors":"Matthew U. Scherer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2614668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2614668","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, psychiatrists have become ever more prevalent in American courtrooms. Consequently, the issue of when the usual rules of medical ethics should apply to forensic psychiatric encounters has taken on increased importance and is a continuing topic of discussion among both legal and medical scholars. A number of approaches to the problem of forensic psychiatric ethics have been proposed, but none adequately addresses the issues that arise when a forensic encounter develops therapeutic characteristics. This article looks to the rules governing the lawyer-client relationship as a model for a new approach to forensic psychiatric ethics. This new model focuses on the expectations of the evaluee and the ways in which the evaluating psychiatrist shapes those expectations to determine how and when the rules of medical ethics should apply to forensic psychiatric encounters. This article describes and analyzes three previously proposed approaches to that question and the closely related question of when and how a doctor-patient relationship can form in the context of a forensic psychiatric evaluation. It also explains why each of these prior approaches does not sufficiently address the issues that arise when a forensic encounter takes on therapeutic characteristics. Finally, it proposes a new approach that draws inspiration from the rules governing the lawyer-client relationship.","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"29 2 1","pages":"247-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2614668","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68225520","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}

引用次数: 3

Quit the Botching, Ohio: Exploring the Flaws in the Ohio Execution Protocol and the Need for Change. 退出拙劣，俄亥俄州:探索俄亥俄州执行协议的缺陷和变革的必要性。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2015-01-01

Rachael Wood

引用次数: 0

The Not So "Sweet Surprise": Lawsuits Blaming Big Sugar for Obesity-Related Health Conditions Face an Uphill Battle. 不那么“甜蜜的惊喜”:将肥胖相关健康状况归咎于大糖的诉讼面临着一场艰苦的战斗。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2015-01-01

Catherine Srithong Wicker

引用次数: 0

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Electronic Health Records, and the Challenge of Electronic Discovery. 联邦民事诉讼规则，电子健康记录，以及电子证据开示的挑战。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2015-01-01

Terrance K Byrne