耐心的力量:解释蒙哥马利事件的义务和法定的坦白义务

Chris Hough
{"title":"耐心的力量:解释蒙哥马利事件的义务和法定的坦白义务","authors":"Chris Hough","doi":"10.1177/1356262216654039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"22 1","pages":"11 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216654039","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient power: The duty to explain post Montgomery and the statutory duty of candour\",\"authors\":\"Chris Hough\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"11 - 6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216654039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

法定坦诚义务的引入和最高法院在蒙哥马利诉拉纳克郡卫生委员会一案中的判决相结合,强调了过去几十年来医患关系发生的深刻变化。作为一个社会,我们已经从家长式的医生决定什么对他的(通常是他的)病人最好的方式走了很长一段路。本文考虑了这些变化,以及它们如何在临床过失索赔中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient power: The duty to explain post Montgomery and the statutory duty of candour
The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.
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