• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • English 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Ethics collections
  • Health Ethics
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Ethics collections
  • Health Ethics
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of the LibraryCommunitiesPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsThis CollectionPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsProfilesView

My Account

LoginRegister

The Library

AboutNew SubmissionSubmission GuideSearch GuideRepository PolicyContact

Juggling Law, Ethics, and Intuition: Practical Answers to Awkward Questions

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Author(s)
Sommerville, A.
Keywords
Doctors
Ethics
Law
Bioethics
Right to Refuse Treatment
Health Care for Newborns and Minors

Full record
Show full item record
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/278919
Online Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Juggling+law,+ethics,+and+intuition:+practical+answers+to+awkward+questions&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics+&volume=29&issue=5&spage=281-286&date=2003-10&au=Sommerville,+A.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.281
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/997622
Abstract
The eclectic problem solving methodology used by the British Medical Association (BMA) is described in this paper. It has grown from the daily need to respond to doctors' practical queries and incorporates reference to law, traditional professional codes, and established BMA policies-all of which must be regularly assessed against the benchmark of contemporary societal expectations. The two Jehovah's Witness scenarios are analysed, using this methodology and in both cases the four principles solution is found to concur with that of the BMA's approach. The author's overall conclusion is that although the BMA resorts to a lengthier list of things to consider, the solutions that emerge are often likely to coincide with the four principles approach.
Date
2016-01-09
Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/997622
doi:10.1136/jme.29.5.281
Journal of Medical Ethics 2003 October; 29(5): 281-286
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Juggling+law,+ethics,+and+intuition:+practical+answers+to+awkward+questions&title=Journal+of+Medical+Ethics+&volume=29&issue=5&spage=281-286&date=2003-10&au=Sommerville,+A.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.281
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/997622
DOI
10.1136/jme.29.5.281
ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1136/jme.29.5.281
Scopus Count
Collections
Health Ethics

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.