原则高于原则?创新如何影响医疗和法律实践中的代理关系。

Julian J Z Polaris
{"title":"原则高于原则?创新如何影响医疗和法律实践中的代理关系。","authors":"Julian J Z Polaris","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Note outlines a conceptual framework for defining and analyzing innovation in the professional practice of medicine and law. The two professions have structural and historical similarities, and both are organized around the principal-agent relationship. Some types of professional activity adhere to the traditional agency model of principal-centered practice, but innovative professionals who develop novel tools and techniques often deviate from the agency model in interesting ways. This Note explores how that distinction plays out by identifying examples from academic medicine, public interest \"cause lawyering\", and corporate law. The field of medicine is governed by a regulatory regime that strictly differentiates routine practice from the experimental activities of clinical research, but the legal profession is governed by a monolithic code of conduct that does not explicitly acknowledge the types of innovation described here. Certain key events in the twentieth century help to explain why the government has chosen to tightly regulate innovation in medicine but not in law, and it turns out that innovators in both fields have found ways to stretch or bend the rules. These observations shed light on each profession's unique culture and can inform current debates over regulatory reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":85893,"journal":{"name":"Yale journal of health policy, law, and ethics","volume":"14 2","pages":"296-349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Principles over principals? How innovation affects the agency relationship in medical and legal practice.\",\"authors\":\"Julian J Z Polaris\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This Note outlines a conceptual framework for defining and analyzing innovation in the professional practice of medicine and law. The two professions have structural and historical similarities, and both are organized around the principal-agent relationship. Some types of professional activity adhere to the traditional agency model of principal-centered practice, but innovative professionals who develop novel tools and techniques often deviate from the agency model in interesting ways. This Note explores how that distinction plays out by identifying examples from academic medicine, public interest \\\"cause lawyering\\\", and corporate law. The field of medicine is governed by a regulatory regime that strictly differentiates routine practice from the experimental activities of clinical research, but the legal profession is governed by a monolithic code of conduct that does not explicitly acknowledge the types of innovation described here. Certain key events in the twentieth century help to explain why the government has chosen to tightly regulate innovation in medicine but not in law, and it turns out that innovators in both fields have found ways to stretch or bend the rules. These observations shed light on each profession's unique culture and can inform current debates over regulatory reform.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":85893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale journal of health policy, law, and ethics\",\"volume\":\"14 2\",\"pages\":\"296-349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale journal of health policy, law, and 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":"Yale journal of health policy, law, and 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

本说明概述了定义和分析医学和法律专业实践中的创新的概念框架。这两个行业在结构和历史上都有相似之处,都是围绕委托代理关系组织起来的。某些类型的专业活动坚持以校长为中心的传统代理模式,但开发新工具和技术的创新专业人员经常以有趣的方式偏离代理模式。本文通过从学术医学、公共利益“事业律师”和公司法中找出例子,探讨这种区别是如何发挥作用的。医学领域是由一个严格区分常规实践和临床研究实验活动的监管制度管理的,但法律职业是由一个单一的行为准则管理的,它没有明确承认这里描述的创新类型。20世纪的一些关键事件有助于解释为什么政府选择严格监管医学创新,而不是法律创新,事实证明,这两个领域的创新者都找到了扩展或扭曲规则的方法。这些观察结果揭示了每个行业独特的文化,并可以为当前有关监管改革的辩论提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Principles over principals? How innovation affects the agency relationship in medical and legal practice.

This Note outlines a conceptual framework for defining and analyzing innovation in the professional practice of medicine and law. The two professions have structural and historical similarities, and both are organized around the principal-agent relationship. Some types of professional activity adhere to the traditional agency model of principal-centered practice, but innovative professionals who develop novel tools and techniques often deviate from the agency model in interesting ways. This Note explores how that distinction plays out by identifying examples from academic medicine, public interest "cause lawyering", and corporate law. The field of medicine is governed by a regulatory regime that strictly differentiates routine practice from the experimental activities of clinical research, but the legal profession is governed by a monolithic code of conduct that does not explicitly acknowledge the types of innovation described here. Certain key events in the twentieth century help to explain why the government has chosen to tightly regulate innovation in medicine but not in law, and it turns out that innovators in both fields have found ways to stretch or bend the rules. These observations shed light on each profession's unique culture and can inform current debates over regulatory reform.

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