5. Liability for Medical Injury

Author(s):  
G. T. Laurie ◽  
S. H. E. Harmon ◽  
E. S. Dove

This chapter discusses ethical and legal aspects of medical liability. It covers compensation for injury; the basis of medical liability; what constitutes negligence; the problem of the novice; protecting patients from products; protecting patients from themselves; the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; operational failures; causation; injuries caused by medical products or devices; and criminal negligence.

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-513
Author(s):  
Stefaan Callens

Abstract Personal health monitoring (PHM) can be defined as comprising all technical systems, processing, collecting, and storing of data linked to a person. PHM involves several legal issues that are described in this article. This article analyses firstly the short term actions that are needed at the European level to allow personal health monitoring in respect of the interests and rights of patients such as the need to have more harmonized medical liability rules at the EU level. Introducing PHM implies also legal action at the EU level on the long run. These long-term actions are related to e.g., the way in which hospitals are organized in their relation with healthcare professionals and with other hospitals or healthcare actors. The paper will finally analyse also how health monitoring projects may change the traditional (non-) relationship between patients and pharmaceutical/medical device industry. Today, the producers and distributors of medicinal products have no specific contact with patients. This situation may change when applying telemonitoring projects and may require to new legal rules.


2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Urbaniak ◽  
Robert Spaczyński

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Guillod

<p>Reducing the number of preventable adverse events has become a public health issue. The paper discusses in which ways the law can contribute to that goal, especially by encouraging a culture of safety among healthcare professionals. It assesses the need or the usefulness to pass so-called <em>disclosure laws </em>and <em>apology laws</em>, to adopt mandatory but strictly confidential Critical Incidents Reporting Systems in hospitals, to change the fault-based system of medical liability or to amend the rules on criminal liability. The paper eventually calls for adding the law to the present agenda of patient safety.</p>


1994 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 29-36
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Abraham ◽  
Paul C. Weiler

During the last year, the proposal of “enterprise” liability for medical malpractice became a major issue in debates about health care and malpractice reform. The idea, however, was not new. In scholarly work over an extended period, we have been developing the systematic case for the concept of enterprise — or, as we originally termed it, “organizational” — liability for medical malpractice. After several years of debating the critics of our proposal to shift the focus of liability for medical injury from individual physicians to the organizations that deliver health care, we were naturally gratified that the idea was now on the national agenda.In particular, we recommended adoption of enterprise liability to President Clinton's Health Care Task Force. The Task Force did embrace a version of the idea as its own, but then encountered stiff resistance from a number of special interests.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  

1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Berman ◽  
◽  
R. Cohen-Sandler

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document