Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
A medical doctor advocates for assisted suicide and the right to die. Robert Latimer: Canada Saskatchewan: 1993 A man euthanizes his child who has lived for years in pain. Karen Ann Quinlan case: United States New Jersey 1976 A 21-year-old girl is in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents wish to remove her from artificial respiration ...
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act, Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694) (May 26, 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248) is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with ...
Gillick's case involved a health departmental circular advising doctors on contraception for people under 16. The circular stated that the prescription of contraception was a matter for the doctor's discretion and that they could be prescribed to under-16s without parental consent.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade nearly two years ago, paving the way for states to usher in new restrictions on abortion, doctors started seeing more young adults seeking ...
American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990), [1] was a federal antitrust suit brought against the American Medical Association (AMA) and 10 co-defendants by chiropractor Chester A. Wilk, DC, and four co-plaintiffs. It resulted in a ruling against the AMA.
The claimant was a woman of small stature and a diabetic under the care of a doctor during her pregnancy and labour. [2] The doctor did not inform her of the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders are unable to pass through the pelvis among diabetic women as she viewed the problem being very slight and believed a caesarean section was not in the claimant's interest.