免责与过失:以拒绝输血界定医患关系

P. Ciechanowski
{"title":"免责与过失:以拒绝输血界定医患关系","authors":"P. Ciechanowski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2314076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a recent health law issue originating from British Columbia, Canada. In Hobbs v. Robertson, the health law issue in question is whether a waiver that bars physician liability for negligence is valid. This is an important question because any answer will have a significant effect on both health law and the patient-physician relationship dynamic. At present, there is no judgment on this case and the British Columbia Court of Appeals has, for the second time, remitted that action back to trial court. This inquiry addresses aspects of tort and contract law in the patient-physician relationship. To address this health law issue, three critical questions are analyzed. The first question is if a waiver can be valid between a patient and physician. The second is whether a waiver is valid only between a patient and a hospital or also with the physician. The final question asks if negligence may be included in a waiver. After analysis, three potential solutions are suggested and discussed with one being chosen as the most suitable for implementing.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Waivers and Negligence: Defining the Patient-Physician Relationship by Refusal of Blood Transfusions\",\"authors\":\"P. Ciechanowski\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2314076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses a recent health law issue originating from British Columbia, Canada. In Hobbs v. Robertson, the health law issue in question is whether a waiver that bars physician liability for negligence is valid. This is an important question because any answer will have a significant effect on both health law and the patient-physician relationship dynamic. At present, there is no judgment on this case and the British Columbia Court of Appeals has, for the second time, remitted that action back to trial court. This inquiry addresses aspects of tort and contract law in the patient-physician relationship. To address this health law issue, three critical questions are analyzed. The first question is if a waiver can be valid between a patient and physician. The second is whether a waiver is valid only between a patient and a hospital or also with the physician. The final question asks if negligence may be included in a waiver. After analysis, three potential solutions are suggested and discussed with one being chosen as the most suitable for implementing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2314076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2314076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了最近发生在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的一个卫生法问题。在霍布斯诉罗伯逊案中,卫生法的问题是禁止医生对过失承担责任的弃权是否有效。这是一个重要的问题,因为任何答案都将对卫生法和医患关系产生重大影响。目前,对此案尚未作出判决,不列颠哥伦比亚省上诉法院已第二次将该诉讼退回初审法院。本调查涉及的侵权行为和合同法方面的医患关系。为了解决这一卫生法问题,本文分析了三个关键问题。第一个问题是病人和医生之间的弃权是否有效。第二个问题是弃权是否仅在病人和医院之间有效,还是对医生也有效。最后一个问题是,过失是否可以包括在弃权书中。经过分析,提出并讨论了三种可能的解决方案,并选择了一种最适合实施的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Waivers and Negligence: Defining the Patient-Physician Relationship by Refusal of Blood Transfusions
This paper discusses a recent health law issue originating from British Columbia, Canada. In Hobbs v. Robertson, the health law issue in question is whether a waiver that bars physician liability for negligence is valid. This is an important question because any answer will have a significant effect on both health law and the patient-physician relationship dynamic. At present, there is no judgment on this case and the British Columbia Court of Appeals has, for the second time, remitted that action back to trial court. This inquiry addresses aspects of tort and contract law in the patient-physician relationship. To address this health law issue, three critical questions are analyzed. The first question is if a waiver can be valid between a patient and physician. The second is whether a waiver is valid only between a patient and a hospital or also with the physician. The final question asks if negligence may be included in a waiver. After analysis, three potential solutions are suggested and discussed with one being chosen as the most suitable for implementing.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信