Informed consent: a Canadian case in a British perspective.
作者信息
Brahams D
出版信息
Lancet. 1987 Oct 31;2(8566):1038. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)92614-6.
PMID:2889956
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Informed consent: a Canadian case in a British perspective.知情同意：从英国视角看一个加拿大案例。
Lancet. 1987 Oct 31;2(8566):1038. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)92614-6.
2
The surgeon's duty to warn of risks: transatlantic approach rejected by Court of Appeal.外科医生告知风险的义务：上诉法院驳回跨大西洋的处理方式
Lancet. 1984 Mar 10;1(8376):578-9. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)90989-9.
3
Consent to treatment: the medical standard reaffirmed.治疗同意书：重申医学标准。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Mar 10;288(6419):802-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6419.802.
4
Why the British courts rejected the American doctrine of informed consent (and what British physicians should do about it).为何英国法院拒绝接受美国的知情同意原则（以及英国医生对此应如何应对）。
Am J Public Health. 1984 Nov;74(11):1286-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.11.1286.
5
Doctor's duty to inform patient of substantial or special risks when offering treatment.医生在提供治疗时向患者告知重大或特殊风险的义务。
Lancet. 1985 Mar 2;1(8427):528-30. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92134-8.
6
The Sidaway case.西达韦案
Lancet. 1985 Mar 23;1(8430):709. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)91378-9.
7
Patients' rights--why the Australian courts have rejected 'Bolam'.患者权利——为何澳大利亚法院驳回了“博勒姆案”判例
J Med Ethics. 1995 Feb;21(1):5-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.1.5.
8
Haughian v. Paine.豪吉安诉佩恩案
Dom Law Rep. 1987 Apr 2;37:624-49.
9
Consent to medical procedures: paternalism, self-determination or therapeutic alliance?医疗程序同意书：家长主义、自主决定权还是治疗联盟？
Law Q Rev. 1985 Jul;101:432-53.
10
Why Britain can't afford informed consent.为何英国承担不起知情同意的代价。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1985 Aug;15(4):19-25.
Zotero 插件