How Might Antibiotic Stewardship Programs Influence Clinicians' Autonomy and Organizations' Liability?

Federal and state governments mandate some health care organizations to implement antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs). Some early adopters developed model ASPs that have helped set industry standards; other benchmarks will likely be forged in subsequent regulation, legislation, and jurisprudence. This article considers how ASP designs can affect professional autonomy, especially of frontline antibiotic stewards who are usually physicians and pharmacists. This article also considers how ASP development and implementation might influence standards of care and malpractice liability.

When Governors Prioritize Individual Freedom over Public Health: Tort Liability for Government Failures.

Over half the states have enacted laws diminishing or curtailing the rights of the executive branch (legislatures or governors) to enact laws to preserve, protect, or safeguard public health in the wake of the COVID-19 emergency. Governor DeSantis, of Florida, for example, effectively banned mask mandates in schools during the high point of the epidemic--based on flawed science and erroneous data--and now wants to make that response permanent. The rules effectuating this Executive Order were enacted under an emergency order finding a threat to public health. Nevertheless, the response promulgated by the Florida Department of Health was to prevent public health measures, favoring individual liberties, parental rights (which have previously been held not to apply in the context of the spread of contagious disease epidemics) at the expense of public health and safety. This article explores alternative means to compel state governments, heretofore vested with the police power to protect public health, to comply with this obligation, using the Florida situation as a case study.

Legal analysis of South Korean cosmetic filler litigations for safer medical practices.

Cosmetic filler injections have gained popularity in recent years, but the rise in complications has led to an increase in legal disputes. This study analyzes civil court rulings related to cosmetic filler injection lawsuits in South Korea from 2007 to 2023. A retrospective case analysis was performed using a systematic database search, and a mixed-methods approach was employed for data analysis. The study examined 27 cases, revealing a high rate of liability findings against medical practitioners. Skin necrosis and blindness were the most common complications, and intravascular filler injection was recognized as negligence. Violation of informed consent was found in most cases, with mean compensation awards of ￦193,019,107 KRW ($142,831 USD) for first instance cases and ￦81,845,052 KRW ($60,564 USD) for second instance cases. The findings emphasize the importance of practitioner awareness, adherence to precautionary measures, and proactive prevention and management of complications. Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for developing strategies that prioritize patient safety and minimize legal disputes in the aesthetic medicine industry. This study provides valuable insights for enhancing medical practices and safeguarding patient well-being in the field of cosmetic filler injections.

Liability of Health Professionals Using Sensors, Telemedicine and Artificial Intelligence for Remote Healthcare.

In the last few decades, there has been an ongoing transformation of our healthcare system with larger use of sensors for remote care and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In particular, sensors improved by new algorithms with learning capabilities have proven their value for better patient care. Sensors and AI systems are no longer only non-autonomous devices such as the ones used in radiology or surgical robots; there are novel tools with a certain degree of autonomy aiming to largely modulate the medical decision. Thus, there will be situations in which the doctor is the one making the decision and has the final say and other cases in which the doctor might only apply the decision presented by the autonomous device. As those are two hugely different situations, they should not be treated the same way, and different liability rules should apply. Despite a real interest in the promise of sensors and AI in medicine, doctors and patients are reluctant to use it. One important reason is a lack clear definition of liability. Nobody wants to be at fault, or even prosecuted, because they followed the advice from an AI system, notably when it has not been perfectly adapted to a specific patient. Fears are present even with simple sensors and AI use, such as during telemedicine visits based on very useful, clinically pertinent sensors; with the risk of missing an important parameter; and, of course, when AI appears "intelligent", potentially replacing the doctors' judgment. This paper aims to provide an overview of the liability of the health professional in the context of the use of sensors and AI tools in remote healthcare, analyzing four regimes: the contract-based approach, the approach based on breach of duty to inform, the fault-based approach, and the approach related to the good itself. We will also discuss future challenges and opportunities in the promising domain of sensors and AI use in medicine.

A review on legal issues of medical robots.

This paper examines the legal challenges associated with medical robots, including their legal status, liability in cases of malpractice, and concerns over patient data privacy and security. And this paper scrutinizes China's nuanced response to these dilemmas. An analysis of Chinese judicial practices and legislative actions reveals that current denial of legal personality to AI at this stage is commendable. To effectively control the financial risks associated with medical robots, there is an urgent need for clear guidelines on responsibility allocation for medical accidents involving medical robots, the implementation of strict data protection laws, and the strengthening of industry standards and regulations.

Death of the suicide law: A changing standard of liability for clinicians.

High rates of suicide continue to plague the modern world, with clinicians, researchers, and policymakers working urgently to ameliorate what has been recognized as a worldwide public health crisis. Under American Law, individuals- including health care providers, could generally not be held liable for causing the suicide of another person. This article presents a review of suicide law in the United States in the context of a recent civil case in which a physician with expertise in mental health was sued for the death of an ex-partner who committed suicide in his home. Historical events and landmark legal cases spanning the 15th century to now are examined and presented as a narrative review to inform society and mental health clinicians a-like towards interpreting the changing medical-legal landscape. As modern advances in science continue to discern the critical biopsychosocial factors that contribute to the act of suicide, there is an inevitably growing concern that suicide may no longer be an incomprehensible nor irrational event as has been assumed for centuries. Thus, it may be considered that individual with expertise and qualification to treat a group of individuals at higher risk of suicide (severe mental illness) may be subject to a different standard than the average individual. This article seeks to present a complex matter where no simple or broad-sweeping conclusions can yet be drawn, however remains a critically important matter for mental health clinicians.

[Medical overuse, defensive medicine and new reform of professional mistake].

Reflecting on the inappropriateness (medical overuse) and on defensive medicine, the Authors wonder whether the new Italian reform of professional guilt, desired at all institutional levels, will actually contain the high economic costs produced by these large and widespread phenomena. After having characterized the medical overuse and the defensive medicine indicating the common traits and main differences, the reflection is conducted by exploring the many scientific evidence that does not document any causal link between the decriminalization of professional conduct and the containment of the costs produced by the prescriptive inappropriateness. They conclude by stating that, for their containment, a third reform of professional liability will not be helpful. Instead, it must focus on other issues, mainly addressing the excessive reliance on judicial recourse. It should provide for mandatory out-of-court conciliatory mechanisms and clarifying the protective umbrella of the doctor's non-criminality.

Doctors, FIRs, and Arrest in Alleged Medical Negligence Cases in India: Demystifying the Legal Tenability.

The relationship between a doctor and a patient is a contract, retaining the essential elements of the tort. Modern medical practice has evolved alongside the court of law to regulate the conduct of doctors and hospitals to reduce litigations of medical negligence. Lately, Indian patients have become more aware of their rights and the Consumer Protection Act. This awareness encourages patients to litigate and seek the help of redressal forums to mitigate their loss/injury in cases of medical negligence. Though there is a rise in complaints of medical negligence filed against doctors and hospitals, these allegations are often frivolous. The specter of litigation constantly looms over medical practitioners, who frequently struggle to defend themselves in a court of law, causing undue anxiety and anguish. Thus, a doctor can be considered the second victim in a medical negligence case. Lack of awareness regarding their legal rights and pertinent laws coupled with contradictory actions of the law enforcement agencies while handling alleged medical negligence cases worsens a doctor's trepidation. Hence, this article attempts to raise awareness among medical professionals, which will thereby allay undue fear while facing an allegation.

A general dental practitioner's responsibility for implants that have been placed by a different clinician.

A review of the management of implants in general practice in relation to the responsibility and liability for managing them when the dentist has not placed the implant themselves.

Emerging post-Dobbs liability concerns for providers handling embryos.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review outlines novel, emerging legal risks for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) providers and patients. RECENT FINDINGS: This article reviews recent antiabortion legal developments that create novel legal risks to IVF. This article examines new potential liability for the handling or managing of embryos, and threats to safe, efficient, standard-of-care practice of IVF. It reviews established US and international judicial and regulatory frameworks based on scientifically grounded recognition of IVF embryos as deserving of 'special respect', and finds this approach to be an alternative for law and policy makers. SUMMARY: Defining life as 'beginning at fertilization' (or 'conception') or otherwise embracing 'embryonic personhood' creates emerging legal vulnerabilities and concerns for IVF patients and professionals who handle embryos and threatens standard-of-care IVF. Internationally and domestically established, scientifically grounded understandings of IVF embryos, rather than religious beliefs, should be the basis for legal frameworks that accord appropriate - but not unlimited - protections to IVF embryos. This article presents this framework as an alternative to the current path being embraced by some US policymakers and courts, as a means of protecting the rights of patients, providers and the families they create.

AI in radiology: Legal responsibilities and the car paradox.

The integration of AI in radiology raises significant legal questions about responsibility for errors. Radiologists fear AI may introduce new legal challenges, despite its potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy. AI tools, even those approved by regulatory bodies like the FDA or CE, are not perfect, posing a risk of failure. The key issue is how AI is implemented: as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or as an aid to radiologists. The latter approach could reduce undesired side effects. However, it's unclear who should be held liable for AI failures, with potential candidates ranging from engineers and radiologists involved in AI development to companies and department heads who integrate these tools into clinical practice. The EU's AI Act, recognizing AI's risks, categorizes applications by risk level, with many radiology-related AI tools considered high risk. Legal precedents in autonomous vehicles offer some guidance on assigning responsibility. Yet, the existing legal challenges in radiology, such as diagnostic errors, persist. AI's potential to improve diagnostics raises questions about the legal implications of not using available AI tools. For instance, an AI tool improving the detection of pediatric fractures could reduce legal risks. This situation parallels innovations like car turn signals, where ignoring available safety enhancements could lead to legal problems. The debate underscores the need for further research and regulation to clarify AI's role in radiology, balancing innovation with legal and ethical considerations.

Including Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research: Moving Beyond Legal Liability.

This Viewpoint summarizes a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that encourages the inclusion of pregnant and lactating individuals in clinical research.

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.

Bleeding Control Protections Within US Good Samaritan Laws.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs). Designed to encourage bystanders to aid at the scene of an emergency, GSLs generally limit the risk of civil tort liability if the care is rendered in good faith. Nation-wide, a leading cause of preventable death is uncontrolled external hemorrhage. Public bleeding control initiatives aim to train the public to recognize life-threatening external bleeding, perform life-sustaining interventions (including direct pressure, tourniquet application, and wound packing), and to promote access to bleeding control equipment to ensure a rapid response from bystanders. METHODS: This study sought to identify the GSLs in each state and the District of Columbia to identify what type of responder is covered by the law (eg, all laypersons, only trained individuals, or only licensed health care providers) and if bleeding control is explicitly included or excluded in their Good Samaritan coverage. RESULTS: Good Samaritan Laws providing civil liability qualified immunity were identified in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. One state, Oklahoma, specifically includes bleeding control in its GSLs. Six states - Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Missouri - have laws that define those covered under Good Samaritan immunity, generally limiting protection to individuals trained in a standard first aid or resuscitation course or health care clinicians. No state explicitly excludes bleeding control from their GSLs, and one state expressly includes it. CONCLUSION: Nation-wide across the United States, most states have broad bystander coverage within GSLs for emergency medical conditions of all types, including bleeding emergencies, and no state explicitly excludes bleeding control interventions. Some states restrict coverage to those health care personnel or bystanders who have completed a specific training program. Opportunity exists for additional research into those states whose GSLs may not be inclusive of bleeding control interventions.