终止医疗建议义务:新加坡护理标准立法

Q2 Social Sciences
K. Amirthalingam
{"title":"终止医疗建议义务:新加坡护理标准立法","authors":"K. Amirthalingam","doi":"10.1177/09685332221103553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard of care to which doctors are held in medical practice is based on the peer professional standard in most common law jurisdictions. However, when it comes to the duty to inform the patient of risks in proposed treatment, courts across the common law world have adopted a prudent patient standard to strike a better balance between beneficence and autonomy. Instead of allowing doctors to control the information provided, courts assess what risks are material to a reasonable patient. Singapore is the most recent jurisdiction to follow suit, but the common law development may be short-lived following legislative intervention. This article critically analyses the law on the standard of care in medical negligence, arguing that the legislative reform was based on a misconception of the law. It highlights some of the potential difficulties in implementing the legislative framework.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"22 1","pages":"189 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Upending the medical duty to advise: Legislating the standard of care in Singapore\",\"authors\":\"K. Amirthalingam\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332221103553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standard of care to which doctors are held in medical practice is based on the peer professional standard in most common law jurisdictions. However, when it comes to the duty to inform the patient of risks in proposed treatment, courts across the common law world have adopted a prudent patient standard to strike a better balance between beneficence and autonomy. Instead of allowing doctors to control the information provided, courts assess what risks are material to a reasonable patient. Singapore is the most recent jurisdiction to follow suit, but the common law development may be short-lived following legislative intervention. This article critically analyses the law on the standard of care in medical negligence, arguing that the legislative reform was based on a misconception of the law. It highlights some of the potential difficulties in implementing the legislative framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"189 - 216\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221103553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221103553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

医生在医疗实践中的护理标准是基于大多数普通法管辖区的同行专业标准。然而,当涉及到告知患者拟议治疗风险的义务时,普通法世界的法院都采用了谨慎的患者标准,以在仁慈和自主之间取得更好的平衡。法院不允许医生控制所提供的信息,而是评估对合理的患者来说哪些风险是重大的。新加坡是最近效仿的司法管辖区,但在立法干预后,普通法的发展可能是短暂的。本文对医疗过失注意标准法进行了批判性分析,认为立法改革是基于对法律的误解。它强调了在执行立法框架方面可能存在的一些困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Upending the medical duty to advise: Legislating the standard of care in Singapore
The standard of care to which doctors are held in medical practice is based on the peer professional standard in most common law jurisdictions. However, when it comes to the duty to inform the patient of risks in proposed treatment, courts across the common law world have adopted a prudent patient standard to strike a better balance between beneficence and autonomy. Instead of allowing doctors to control the information provided, courts assess what risks are material to a reasonable patient. Singapore is the most recent jurisdiction to follow suit, but the common law development may be short-lived following legislative intervention. This article critically analyses the law on the standard of care in medical negligence, arguing that the legislative reform was based on a misconception of the law. It highlights some of the potential difficulties in implementing the legislative framework.
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
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
×
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