医疗纠纷病历资料保全存在问题与对策

《侵权责任法》第六十一条第二款规定，患者要求查阅、复制病历资料的，医疗机构应当提供。第五十八条规定，医疗机构隐匿或者拒绝提供与纠纷有关的病历资料的，人民法院推定医疗机构有过错。病历资料作为医疗损害案件诉讼的核心证据，对病历资料保全自然就成为医患双方诉前关注的焦点问题。由于现行法律法规对病历资料规定的不一致，导致医患双方对病历资料的范围、保全的方式方法、封存病历资料期限、保全病历资料主体等诸多问题认识极不一致，争议颇多。造成医患双方在发生医疗纠纷的基础上进而引发次生纠纷，导致医患矛盾进一步加深，不利于纠纷的及时解决。笔者不揣简陋，试对病历资料保全环节中存在的问题及对相关问题提出规制建议，希望同仁不吝赐教。     

医疗事故赔偿的法律应用研究

医疗事故赔偿 ,应当考虑医疗事故等级 ,医疗过失行为在医疗事故损害后果中的责任程度 ,医疗事故损害后果与患者原有疾病状况之间的关系这些因素 ,来确定具体的赔偿数额。且应按照赔偿项目和计算标准进行计算 ,并且应考虑实际情况 ,使赔偿合法、合理、公平、公正 ,以维护当事人的合法权益。     

Call for Papers: Ethical and Legal Issues in Clinical and Forensic Practice

Law and Human Behavior -     

Dreams and Nightmares: Practical and Ethical Issues for Patients and Physicians Using Personal Health Records

Electronic health records for patients, personal health records (PHRs), have become increasingly popular among policy makers and purchasers, but uptake among patients and physicians has been relatively slow. PHRs have varying uses that might make them more or less appealing to different stakeholders. The three core uses for PHRs — promoting communication, data use, and patient responsibility — each raises a set of potential practical and financial dilemmas. But some ethical concerns are also at play, some of which are rarely recognized as values-based barriers to the use of PHRs. Recognizing these ethical issues, and addressing them explicitly in PHR design and policy making, would help PHRs to achieve their promise.     

中国企业赴美并购的法律风险及其防范对策

中国企业在赴美并购过程中总存在着各种各样的法律风险。中国国有企业赴美并购时应高度重视美国的国家安全审查机制,清晰地突出国有企业的商事主体性质。而美国外资委员会引入听证会程序,应充分听取中国投资者的意见,放弃投资保护主义。中国企业要熟悉美国的公司并购规则与治理规则,明确目标公司选择符合本公司及其股东利益最大化的收购要约而并非现金出价最多的要约,是美国公司并购的常态。中美双方加快双边投资保护协定的谈判进程,就企业的国有化条款而言,应采取充分的市场化补偿标准。我国政府鼓励企业赴美并购,可将核准制改为备案制。要加快建立健全海外投资纠纷的仲裁机制,提高我国仲裁机构的国际竞争力。     

Justifications for Non-Consensual Medical Intervention: From Infectious Disease Control to Criminal Rehabilitation

A central tenet of medical ethics holds that it is permissible to perform a medical intervention on a competent individual only if that individual has given informed consent to the intervention. Yet it occasionally seems morally permissible to carry out non-consensual medical interventions on competent individuals for the purpose of infectious disease control (IDC). We describe two different moral frameworks that have been invoked in support of non-consensual IDC interventions and identify five desiderata that might be used to guide assessments of the moral permissibility of such interventions on either kind of fundamental justification. We then consider what these desiderata imply for the justifiability of carrying out non-consensual medical interventions that are designed to facilitate rehabilitation amongst serious criminal offenders. We argue that these desiderata suggest that a plausible case can be made in favor of such interventions.     

Return to Work for Healthcare Professionals with Substance Use Disorders: Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Challenges

Occupational health providers (OHPs) and other clinicians who assess readiness to work have a difficult task in assessing return to work for healthcare professionals (HCPs) with substance use disorders (SUDs). About 10 to 15 % of HCPs will misuse drugs or alcohol at some time in their career, yet they are often reluctant to seek help. This paper reviews the clinical challenges of assessing SUDs in HCPs, including risk factors, prognosis, and limited evidence base for work restrictions. Furthermore, ethical and legal challenges throughout the return to work process are reviewed for stakeholders such as HCPs with SUDs, OHPs, other providers, employers, and the public at large. Suggestions are made for stakeholders, particularly for OHPs and other providers, who are navigating this complex environment.     

Laboratories of Statehood: Legal Intervention in Colonial Africa and Today

The immense body of contemporary work aimed at ‘promoting the rule of law’ is often accused of ‘neo‐imperialism’. Yet, despite many points of contiguity between past and present legal interventions, the charge is overbroad and rarely illuminating. This article attempts to move beyond polemic to track concrete historical and structural forerunners of today's rule of law work. Focusing mainly (though not exclusively) on late imperial British endeavours, it traces colonial legal interventions over time, the techniques adopted (and rejected), the shifting normative bases of legitimacy, and moments of strategic recalibration in the face of resistance. Three broad attitudes towards law across the period are (provisionally) characterised as ‘regulative’, ‘constitutive’ and ‘institutive’ moments. In each phase, the Powers treat colonial territories as laboratories of statehood, within which experiments are conducted to locate the optimal configuration of law. In conclusion some counterparts to these moments in today's ‘rule of law’ activities are identified.