Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician–patient privilege not to ...
Recognising that therapeutic privilege provides doctors with a significant amount of power over the patient, the court of the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board 2015 case ruled therapeutic privilege ‘is not intended to subvert that principle by enabling the doctor to prevent the patient from making an informed choice where she is liable to ...
Confidentiality is commonly applied to conversations between doctors and patients. Legal protections prevent physicians from revealing certain discussions with patients, even under oath in court. [6] This physician-patient privilege only applies to secrets shared between physician and patient during the course of providing medical care. [6] [7]
An admitting privilege is the right of a doctor to admit patients to a hospital for medical treatment without first having to go through an emergency department.This is generally restricted to doctors on the hospital staff, although in some countries such as Canada and the United States, both general practitioners and specialists can have admitting privileges.
The doctor–patient relationship is a central part of health care and the practice of medicine. A doctor–patient relationship is formed when a doctor attends to a patient's medical needs and is usually through consent. [1] This relationship is built on trust, respect, communication, and a common understanding of both the doctor and patients ...
Apr. 20—Several doctors at a Santa Fe practice are up in arms after learning Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center leaders revoked their hospital privileges last month, a move the group's ...
Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened ...
Some troops leave the battlefield injured. Others return from war with mental wounds. Yet many of the 2 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from a condition the Defense Department refuses to acknowledge: Moral injury.