|
|
 |
| Physician Law Review |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
| Deposition & Court Testimony |
| 7. |
Conclusion. |
|
|
This is a fascinating
and yet unpredictable area of medicine and law.
The legal cases most directly applicable to
emergency practice are those involving a duty to
the driving public. However, the correct approach
in the practice of emergency medicine is to
consider on a case by case basis if a particular
therapy or treatment or the patient's underlying
condition puts a third party, or a potential class
of third parties at risk of harm. Where
"reasonable people would agree that such a duty
exists", the emergency physician should act. The
appropriate perspective, the reasonable person, is
the patient, not the emergency physician or a
panel of judges.
- Prosser, §56 at 374.
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of
California. 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d at
343.
- Kirk v. Reese Hospital & Medical
Center., 117 Ill. 2d 507, 513 N.E.2d 387,
396-397.
- 108 N.M. 511; 775P.2d 713.
- Id at p. 84.
- 529 A.2d 1364.
- 108 N.M. 511; 775P.2d 713.
- 869 S.W.2d 403.
- Gooden v. Tips, 651 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.App.
1983); Hasenei v. United States, 541 F. Supp.
999, 1011 (D.Md. 1982).
- 525 Pa. 558; 583 A.2d 422.
- Johnson v. West Virginia University
Hospital, Inc. 413 S.E. 2d 889 (W.Va. 1991) West
Virginia
- 410 ILCS 325/1 et seq.
- 614 P2d 735.
- 478 F. Supp.
1134.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
