法院判决支持继续治疗医学上无效的案件。

Hospital ethics Pub Date : 1994-05-01

{"title":"法院判决支持继续治疗医学上无效的案件。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Confusion reigns in the care of two medically futile cases as one state's supreme court requires hospitals to ask the local state attorney's office to arbitrate conflicts between \"acceptable medical treatment and the patient's wishes,\" and another court applies the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require a hospital to stabilize an anencephalic child's respiratory distress.","PeriodicalId":79630,"journal":{"name":"Hospital ethics","volume":"10 3","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Court decisions side with continued treatment of medically futile cases.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Confusion reigns in the care of two medically futile cases as one state's supreme court requires hospitals to ask the local state attorney's office to arbitrate conflicts between \\\"acceptable medical treatment and the patient's wishes,\\\" and another court applies the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require a hospital to stabilize an anencephalic child's respiratory distress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":79630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"1-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

一个州的最高法院要求医院要求当地州检察官办公室仲裁“可接受的医疗和病人的愿望”之间的冲突，另一个法院适用联邦紧急医疗和积极劳动法案(EMTALA)要求医院稳定无脑儿童的呼吸窘迫。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

本刊更多论文

Court decisions side with continued treatment of medically futile cases.

Confusion reigns in the care of two medically futile cases as one state's supreme court requires hospitals to ask the local state attorney's office to arbitrate conflicts between "acceptable medical treatment and the patient's wishes," and another court applies the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require a hospital to stabilize an anencephalic child's respiratory distress.

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

Hospital ethics

自引率

0.00%

发文量