The right of privacy protects the doctor-patient relationship

Article Abstract:

The landmark US Supreme Court decision regarding the case of Roe v. Wade not only involved the clarification of a woman's right to reproductive self-determination, but also involved the issue of the right of privacy between the physician and patient. A by-product of this decision is the reenforcement of the physician's right to make medical judgments without state interference. The recent case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Service essentially upheld the general parameters concerning constitutional rights of privacy as set forth by the Roe v. Wade decision. However, the tone of opinion rendered by the court implies that the issues of abortion and the right to privacy will be debated further. Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, abortion laws were classified as criminal laws, specifically directing and restricting the actions a doctor may and may not take in treating his patient. A compromise of the privacy of the physician-patient relationship not only negatively influences the individual, but undermines the medical profession as a whole. A critical aspect of the relationship between the physician and patient is the ability of each to be candid and open with the other. Historically, the law has always upheld this concept. However, some seek new abortion legislation which would restrict, or at the very least, inhibit this interchange. One of the primary considerations that cannot be separated from the abortion legislation debate is the question of whether personal medical health decisions should be made by the patient alone or with the advice of his doctor, or by the state. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Social aspects, Interpretation and construction, Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Physician and patient, Physician-patient relations, Privacy, Right of, Right of privacy, Confidential communications, Abortion, United States. Supreme Court, Medical law, Physician-patient privilege, column

---

Bioethics commission examines informed consent from subjects who are 'decisionally incapable.'(Medical News & Perspectives)

Article Abstract:

New methods are needed to ensure that people participating in medical research trials have given their informed consent. This becomes even more critical when the participants are incapable of making these kinds of decisions. People with psychiatric disorders often fall into this category. Instead of excluding these patients, physicians could develop educational programs to teach patients about informed consent and the nature of the study. Some have developed a 9-point questionnaire that includes the most important points but is not a substitute for the informed consent form.

Patient education, Capacity and disability

---

Reforming informed consent to genetic research. (Commentary)

Article Abstract:

Informed consent is not just a form for patients to sign but a process to help them understand the risks and benefits of participating in medical research. Too often, the form becomes a substitute for the process, and seems to be constructed mostly to protect the researchers and their institutions rather than the patient.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The right fit. The right track. No justice, no peace
• Abstracts: Reactivation of unstable angina after the discontinuation of heparin. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation
• Abstracts: Involving the patient in care. Qualified trainees. A practical guide to managing coursework
• Abstracts: Guiding rights. Assessing leadership development training. Are lecturers keeping up with their PREP?
• Abstracts: Face to face. Day in the life

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.