Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China.

BACKGROUND: Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR. METHODS: This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony.

OBJECTIVE: The present research examined whether concurrent expert testimony ("hot tubbing") and court-appointed testimony reduced adversarial allegiance in clinical experts' judgments compared with traditional adversarial expert testimony. HYPOTHESES: We predicted Hypothesis 1: Defense experts would render more not responsible judgments and lower ratings of criminal responsibility than would prosecution experts; Hypothesis 2: Adversarial allegiance effects on experts' judgments would be heightened for adversarial experts and attenuated for concurrent experts over time; Hypothesis 3: Adversarial and concurrent experts would report higher dissonance than would court-appointed experts and adversarial experts' ratings would increase over time, concurrent experts' ratings would decrease, and court-appointed experts' ratings would remain unchanged. METHOD: Clinicians and advanced clinical doctoral students conducted simulated criminal responsibility evaluations for the prosecution, defense, or court. We categorized participants as favoring the prosecution or defense based on their preexisting attitudes and randomly assigned them to the adversarial, concurrent, or court-appointed expert testimony conditions. Participants completed a dichotomous responsibility judgment, strength of responsibility ratings, and cognitive dissonance measure after initial evidence review (n = 93), report completion (n = 52), and testimony (n = 48). Concurrent experts generated a joint report outlining areas of agreement and disagreement before providing testimony. RESULTS: Concurrent testimony did not eliminate adversarial allegiance. Adversarial and concurrent experts' perceptions of responsibility did not significantly differ (d = .04, 95% CI [-.64, .71]) or change over time (ηp2 = .03); however, prosecution experts-across testimony types-rated the defendant as significantly more responsible than did defense experts (d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]). Concurrent and adversarial experts did not differ in their reports and minimally differed in testimony content. CONCLUSIONS: Experts who initially favored the prosecution or defense showed adversarial allegiance regardless of expert testimony method, and we observed no attenuation of this bias over the course of their case involvement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Hunger strike in prison: medical, ethical and legal aspects.

BACKGROUND: A hunger strike is a common form of protest in prison and is a potential cause of many types of problems, both for facility administrators and health care staff. Issues of conflict of rights and obligations involved, and how to treat people who are subject, have created major controversies. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review published studies that discuss the medical, ethical and legal considerations of managing a hunger strike in a prison setting from a physician's perspective. METHODS: A database search using "Medline" "Ovid" and "Science Direct was conducted to identify relevant publications. We included case series, guidelines and, review articles. RESULTS: The physician must clearly inform the striker of the risks and provide clinical assessment and regular monitoring of the concerned. The role of the psychiatrist is to detect an initial mental pathology underlying or secondary to fasting and assess the capacity of the striker's judgment. Thus, the clinician is faced with two paradoxical obligations: to assist and respect the striker's will. In addition, medical intervention is possible if the prognosis is life-threatening even without the patient's consent. CONCLUSION: The current practice of non-consensual attitude among hunger-striking seeking in detention needs a closer inquiry. Medical practitioners should be aware of their ethical and legal responsibilities, and that they should act independently of government or institutional interests.

Resolving Disagreement: A Multi-Jurisdictional Comparative Analysis of Disputes About Children's Medical Care.

Recently, the English courts have dealt with a number high-profile, emotive disputes over the care of very ill children, including Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Tafida Raqeeb. It is perhaps fair to say such cases have become a regular feature of the courts in England. But is the situation similar in other jurisdictions? If not, are there lessons to be learned from these jurisdictions that do not seem to need to call on judges to resolve these otherwise intractable disputes? We argue that many of the differences we see between jurisdictions derive from cultural and social differences manifesting in both the legal rules in place, and how the various parties interact with, and defer to, one another. We further argue that while recourse to the courts is undesirable in many ways, it is also indicative of a society that permits difference of views and provides for these differences to be considered in a public manner following clear procedural and precedential rules. These are the hallmarks of a liberal democracy that allows for pluralism of values, while still remaining committed to protecting the most vulnerable parties in these disputes-children facing life-limiting conditions.

Medical Tourism and the Best Interests of the Critically ill Child in the Era of Healthcare Globalisation.

In this article, we examine emerging challenges to medical law arising from healthcare globalisation concerning disputes between parents and healthcare professionals in the care and treatment of critically ill children. We explore a series of issues emerging in English case law concerning children's medical treatment that are signs of increasing globalisation. We argue that these interrelated issues present distinct challenges to healthcare economics, clinical practice, and the operation of the law. First, social media leverages the emotive aspects of cases; secondly, the Internet provides unfiltered information about novel treatments and access to crowdfunding to pay for them. Finally, the removal of barriers to global trade and travel allows child medical tourism to emerge as the nexus of these issues. These aspects of globalisation have implications for medicine and the law, yet child medical tourism has been little examined. We argue that it affects a range of interests, including children's rights, parents' rights as consumers, and the interests of society in communalised healthcare. Identifying putative solutions and a research agenda around these issues is important. While cases involving critically ill children are complex and emotionally fraught, the interconnectedness of these issues requires the law to engage and respond coherently to the impacts of healthcare globalisation.

Getting the Balance Right: Medical Futility, Scientific Advancement, and the Role of Law.

The concept of medical futility as an applied ethical framework has seen a rise and fall in its popularity over the last 30 years. It is a term used in relation to the assessment of a patient's health condition that is deemed untreatable, irreversible, and unresolvable. In four recent cases, Gard, Evans, Haastrup, and Raqeeb, the concept has been brought to the fore once again. These cases highlight a mounting tension between clinicians and families. Parental desires to see their child's treatment continued, while understandable, should not dominate treatment planning. This article analyses judicial interpretation of the factors which determine an assessment of futility and in doing so, argues that the role of medical futility in judicial decisions of this kind is gaining prominence and will continue to do so as scientific advancement blurs the limits of medicine even further.

[Nurse and Patient Dispute Litigation in Independent Nursing Practice].

BACKGROUND: Although medical dispute and other contentious cases involving patients and nurses have risen significantly in recent years, few studies have examined the litigation issues involved in nurse-patient disputes. PURPOSE: This study was designed to explore the background, categories, and degrees of harm to patients and the judgments made by the courts. METHODS: Qualitative research was used. Cases of criminal, written judgments related to nurse practice negligence and recorded in district courts in Taiwan from 2008 to 2017 were selected. Data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 41 hospitals and 55 nurses were identified. The largest number of cases involved regional hospitals (36.6%), internal medicine departments (31.7%), general wards (46.3%), night shifts (40.0%), and staff nurses (85.5%). Four categories of independent nurse practice negligence were identified, including observation-evaluation, environmental security, physician notification, and nursing records. Negligent homicide (58.2%) was the most common court judgment and ten nurses (18.2%) were found guilty of the charges brought against them. CONCLUSIONS / IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study highlight for nurses the content of nurse practice negligence and the related judgments by the courts, which hopefully may guide nurses to avoid practice negligence in the future.

Dispute between the family of the very seriously ill patient and the doctors.

The decided cases on disputes between the doctor and the family of the patient. A consideration of the relevant factors, such as the prognosis, the quality of life, the wishes of the patient, the tolerability of the patient, futility, dignity. Discussion of possible alternatives, such as wait and see. Ultimately the best interests of the patient must prevail.

Toward global standardization of conducting fair investigations of allegations of research misconduct.

In the United States, through nation-wide discussions, the procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct are now well established. Procedures are geared toward carefully treating both complainants and respondents fairly in accordance with the US framework. Other countries, which have their own cultural and legal framework, also need fair and legally compatible procedures for conducting investigations of allegations of research misconduct. Given the rapid growth of international collaboration in research, it is desirable to have a global standard, or common ground, for misconduct investigations. Institutions need clear guidance on important subjects such as what information should be included in the investigation reports, how the investigation committee should be organized once research misconduct allegation has been received, how to conduct the investigation, how the data and information obtained should be taken as evidence for vs. against misconduct, and what policies the investigation committee should follow. We explore these issues from the viewpoint of members of committees investigating accusations of research misconduct (hereafter referred to as "investigation committees") as well as persons overseeing the committees in Japan. We hope to engender productive discussions among experts in misconduct investigations, leading to a formulation of international standards for such investigation.

New Zealand Policy on Frozen Embryo Disputes.

Disputes between separated couples over whether frozen embryos can be used in an attempt to create a child create a moral dilemma for public policy. When a couple create embryos intending to parent any resulting children, New Zealand's current policy requires the consent of both people at every stage of the ART process. New Zealand's Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has proposed a policy change that would give ex-partners involved in an embryo dispute twelve months to come to an agreement before the embryos are destroyed. New Zealand's current policy and the proposed policy both favour the person who wishes to avoid procreation. Two alternative policy approaches that do not favour procreative avoidance are considered. Using pre-fertilisation contracts to determine the decision reached in embryo disputes allows the couple's wishes at the time the embryos are created to determine what happens to the embryos if they separate. However, pre-fertilisation contracts are agreements about healthcare and personal relationships, and changing circumstances can make enforcing such agreements unjust. Finally, it is argued that New Zealand's Family Court system should be used to reach decisions that balance the interests of those involved in the dispute.

An Analysis of Charlie's Law and Alfie's Law.

The Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases were high-profile cases involving disagreements between the parents of young infants and medical practitioners, which have given impetus to pre-existing calls for law reform that have been rebranded as 'Charlie's Law' and 'Alfie's Law'. I argue against the proposal to replace the best interest test, which is currently determinative in such contentious cases, with a significant harm test, as it would render UK law divergent from international law. I also employ critical theory to rebut the notion that parents are the best decision makers and refute criticisms of clinicians (who reflexively acknowledged the limits of medicine). I utilise theories of distributive justice to demonstrate that legal reform may exacerbate unfairness, and case law to show that it may be unworkable. Nonetheless, I apply critical and Foucauldian theory to critique the lack of patient and public empowerment within the NHS and I endorse the proposal to ensure that mediation is offered in contentious cases, as this may empower patients and their carers. I also aver that the best interests test should be informed by clearer criteria regarding the allocation of finite resources, which the public should influence via the democratisation of the NHS.

Dying too soon or living too long? Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after Re Y.

BACKGROUND: In the ruling in Y [2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The perceived requirement, which originated in a court ruling in 1993, encompassed those in the vegetative state and those in the minimally conscious state. The ruling in Y confirms that the court may still be approached to decide difficult or contested cases, but there is otherwise no routine requirement that the judges be approached. MAIN BODY: There is much to welcome in this ruling, particularly as it means that these decisions for these patients are no longer (unusually) singled out for a judicial decision, with all the financial and emotional costs that court proceedings can entail. However, there is also a risk that the ruling might have unwelcome consequences. First, there is the possibility that patients might die too soon, particularly if doctors should now adopt the courts' previous reasoning, which has suggested that patients in the vegetative state lack interests, so treatment may - perhaps must - be withdrawn. Secondly, there is the converse possibility that patients might live too long, since empirical research suggests that - whether intentionally or not - patients' families, clinicians, and the health system appear to promote treatment-by-default. CONCLUSION: Rather than adopt general positions, which may be contestable and potentially risky, this article argues, on a pluralistic basis, that the individual patient should be the focus of any decision made in his or her 'best interests'. The existing legal framework in England and Wales, which is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, already points in this direction, although more efforts may be needed to ensure that those involved in making these decisions are suitably educated and supported. Fortunately, new guidance from the British Medical Association could help clinicians and families to make decisions in the future, which are appropriate for the incapacitated individual patient in question.

USA aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of the Mexico City Policy.

BACKGROUND: The Mexico City Policy, first announced by US President Ronald Reagan and since lifted and reinstated by presidents along partisan lines, prohibits US foreign assistance to any organisation that performs or provides counselling on abortion. Many organisations affected by this policy are also providers of modern contraception. If the policy reduces these organisations' ability to supply modern contraceptives, it could have the unintended consequence of increasing abortion rates. METHODS: We empirically examined patterns of modern contraception use, pregnancies, and abortion among women in 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa in response to the reinstatement and subsequent repeal of the Mexico City Policy across three presidential administrations (William Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama). We combine individual-level data on pregnancies and abortions from 743 691 women, country-year data on modern contraception use, and annual data on development assistance for family planning and reproductive health in a difference-in-difference framework to examine relative changes in use of modern contraception, pregnancy, and abortion in response to the policy. FINDINGS: We found that when the Mexico City Policy was in effect (2001-08), abortion rates rose among women in countries highly exposed to the policy by 4·8 abortions per 10 000 woman-years (95% CI 1·5 to 8·1, p=0·0041) relative to women in low-exposure countries and relative to periods when the policy was rescinded in 1995-2000 and 2009-14, a rise of approximately 40%. We found a symmetric reduction in use of modern contraception by 3·15 percentage points (relative decrease of 13·5%; 95% CI -4·9 to -1·4; p=0·0006) and increase in pregnancies by 3·2 percentage points (relative increase of 12%; 95% CI 1·6 to 4·8; p<0·0001) while the policy was enacted. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that curbing US assistance to family planning organisations, especially those that consider abortion as a method of family planning, increases abortion prevalence in sub-Saharan African countries most affected by the policy. FUNDING: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Stanford Earth Dean's Fellowship.

[Medical Dispute Related to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Complications: Prevention and Management].

Because gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy examinations are being performed increasingly frequently, the rate of detection of cancer and of precancerous lesions has increased. Moreover, development of more advanced endoscopic technologies has expanded the indications for, and thus frequency of, therapeutic endoscopic procedures. However, the incidence of complications associated with diagnostic or therapeutic GI endoscopy has also increased. The complications associated with GI endoscopy can be ameliorated by endoscopic or conservative treatment, but caution is needed as some of the more serious complications, such as perforation, can lead to death. In this chapter, we review the possible complications of GI endoscopy and discuss methods for their prevention and treatment.

The Israel Family Court - Therapeutic jurisprudence and jurisprudential therapy from the start.

Based on the recommendations of a commission set up to review the handling of Family Law cases in Israel, the Family Courts Law 5755-1995 included a revolutionary provision - that a Social Services Unit, staffed by senior social workers, would be an integral part of each Family Court. Their mandate includes giving assessment, advice and assistance services to litigants and to the court, and this provision has been broadly interpreted, to include mediation and referrals for therapy. The activities of the Unit are confidential and free of charge to the parties. More recently the Units were given the task of seeing children whose future is the subject of litigation, to find out their needs and views; and also to serve as the agency which parties who want to start proceedings are required to attend, in order to receive information about the effect of proceedings on their children and advice about alternative dispute resolution to avoid litigation. The resulting synergy between the social workers and the Judges ensures that the needs of all those involved are met in a therapeutic fashion where this is necessary and possible, alongside the judicial powers to make orders as needed. Thus unnecessary suffering can be mitigated.