Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
At the same time, it outlines that ‘Withholding pertinent medical information from patients in the belief that disclosure is medically contraindicated creates a conflict between the physician’s obligations to promote patient welfare and to respect patient autonomy.’ [5] A study in 2001 found that 59% of psychiatrists disclosed a ...
Controversial Australian psychiatrist Harry Bailey treated mental patients via deep sleep therapy and other methods at a Sydney mental hospital. He has been linked with the deaths of 85 patients. [20] He died by suicide before he could be punished. Political abuse of psychiatry: Soviet Union, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and China
An involuntarily committed, legally competent patient who refused medication had a right to professional medical review of the treating psychiatrist's decision. The Court left the decision-making process to medical professionals. 14th 1990 Washington v. Harper: Prisoners have only a very limited right to refuse psychotropic medications in prison.
Our patients are being harmed until we can get our act together,” said Dr. Davida Schiff, whose hospital network, Mass General Brigham in New England, instituted a new policy this year that ...
Withholding information from a patient is typically seen as unethical and in violation of a patient's right to make informed decisions. However, in situations where a patient has requested not to be informed or to have the information provided to a second party or in an emergency situation in which the patient does not have decision-making ...
Yet California remains one of only six states that requires doctors to report patients with epilepsy to their local health office, which then shares the patient’s name and diagnosis with the DMV ...
Too many patients come in complaining about lethargy, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or some other fairly common minor symptom and expect medication or some sort of intervention to cure them.
In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.