Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Legal and ethical issues in complementary medicine: a United States perspective Legal and ethical issues in complementary medicine: a United States perspective. Author details The way forward involves not only preventing negligence and fraud, but also facilitating therapeutic exchanges between various healthcare providers and their patients United States physicians, like their Australian counterparts, are deeply interested in the legal and ethical issues surrounding patient use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.1-3 Key legal questions of concern to physicians include (i) malpractice liability for negligent care and for inadequate informed consent; (ii) licensure and credentialling; (iii) scope of practice (the legally authorised practice boundaries for non-physicians, including CAM providers); (iv) regulation of dietary supplements; (v) professional discipline; (vi) third-party reimbursement; and (vii) healthcare fraud.1 This article briefly highlights key aspects of the first and second issues, comparing them, where possible, with the situation in Australia, and then brings an ethical perspective to the discussion. Duty of care regarding informed consentA major issue confronting physicians in everyday clinical practice is the extent to which they have a duty to discuss CAM therapies with their patients. Kerridge and McPhee’s article (page 164) argues that, in Australia, physicians have a “proactive and reactive” duty to do so.4 In the US, as part of the legal and ethical obligation of informed consent, physicians have a duty to disclose and discuss reasonable and feasible treatment alternatives, together with the risks and benefits of each option.2,3 While no court has yet held a physician liable for failure to disclose a CAM option, such a rule would be the logical extension of a 1993 federal appeals court case involving a patient’s claim that the physician should have disclosed the possibility of trying EDTA chelation therapy rather than bypass surgery to treat a carotid artery. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_03_020804/coh10299_fm.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||