• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

关于决策的决策:良知、监管与法律。

Making decisions about decision-making: conscience, regulation, and the law.

作者信息

Miola José

机构信息

School of Law, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

出版信息

Med Law Rev. 2015 Spring;23(2):263-82. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv010. Epub 2015 Apr 24.

DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwv010
PMID:25910908
Abstract

The exercise of conscience can have far reaching effects. Poor behaviour can be fatal, as it has occurred in various medical scandals over the years. This article takes a wide definition of conscience as its starting point, and argues that the decision-making processes open to society--legal regulation and professional regulation--can serve to limit the options available to an individual and thus her ability to exercise her conscience. The article charts the law's changing attitude to legal intervention, which now seeks to limit the use of conscience by individuals, and addresses concerns that this may serve to 'de-moralise' medicine. It also examines the reasons for this legal change of approach.

摘要

良心的践行可能会产生深远影响。不良行为可能是致命的,就像这些年来在各种医疗丑闻中所发生的那样。本文以对良心的宽泛定义为出发点,并认为社会可采用的决策过程——法律监管和行业监管——可能会限制个人可选择的范围,进而限制其践行良心的能力。本文梳理了法律对法律干预态度的变化,如今法律干预旨在限制个人对良心的运用,并探讨了人们担心这可能会使医学“去道德化”的问题。文章还研究了这种法律方法转变的原因。

相似文献

1
Making decisions about decision-making: conscience, regulation, and the law.关于决策的决策:良知、监管与法律。
Med Law Rev. 2015 Spring;23(2):263-82. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv010. Epub 2015 Apr 24.
2
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
3
A bridge too far: individualised claims of conscience.过犹不及:良心的个体化主张。
Med Law Rev. 2015 Spring;23(2):283-302. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv011. Epub 2015 Apr 22.
4
WHO'S IN CHARGE? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDICAL LAW, MEDICAL ETHICS, AND MEDICAL MORALITY?谁来负责?医学法律、医学伦理与医学道德之间的关系?
Med Law Rev. 2015 Fall;23(4):505-30. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwv004. Epub 2015 Mar 9.
5
[Informed consent in the patients' rights law].[患者权利法中的知情同意]
Rev Med Chil. 2012 Oct;140(10):1347-51. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872012001000017.
6
Personal morality and professional obligations: rights of conscience and informed consent.个人道德与职业义务:良知权利与知情同意
Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Winter;52(1):30-8. doi: 10.1353/pbm.0.0061.
7
Family involvement, independence, and patient autonomy in practice.实践中的家庭参与、独立性与患者自主性。
Med Law Rev. 2011 Spring;19(2):192-234. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwr008. Epub 2011 May 4.
8
Response to: 'Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies' by Schuklenk and Smalling.对舒克伦克和斯莫林所著《为何在自由民主国家医疗专业人员对依良心拒行无道德诉求权》的回应
J Med Ethics. 2017 Apr;43(4):248-249. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103670. Epub 2016 Sep 6.
9
Individualised Claims of Conscience, Clinical Judgement and Best Interests.良心、临床判断和最佳利益的个性化主张。
Health Care Anal. 2018 Mar;26(1):81-93. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0330-6.
10
[Conscientious objection in the clinical setting. A proposal for its appropriate use].[临床环境中的良心拒斥。关于其合理使用的提议]
Rev Calid Asist. 2011 May-Jun;26(3):188-93. doi: 10.1016/j.cali.2011.02.008. Epub 2011 May 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Ethical Gaps in Ophthalmology in the United States.美国眼科领域的伦理差距
Clin Ophthalmol. 2024 Sep 6;18:2539-2544. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S475660. eCollection 2024.
2
Clinicians and AI use: where is the professional guidance?临床医生和人工智能的使用:专业指导在哪里?
J Med Ethics. 2024 Jun 21;50(7):437-441. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108831.
3
Individualised Claims of Conscience, Clinical Judgement and Best Interests.良心、临床判断和最佳利益的个性化主张。
Health Care Anal. 2018 Mar;26(1):81-93. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0330-6.