Search Results Search Sort by RelevanceMost Recent Letter to the Editor Oct 2019 Response to “Will We Code for Default ECMO?”: Clarifying the Scope of Do-Not-ECMO Orders Jacob A. Blythe, MA, Sarah E. Wieten, PhD, and Jason N. Batten, MD, MA The authors further consider the merits of preventing ECMO from becoming a default treatment. AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E926-929. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.926. Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Option Comparison Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6b-0501. Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Additional Information Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6c-0501. Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Option Assessment Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6a-0501. Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Disclosure and Patient Information: Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6-0501. Health Law Oct 2010 Testing Manufacturer Liability in FDA-Approved Device Malfunction Ryan Bailey and Kristin E. Schleiter, JD, LLM The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., may prevent consumers injured by medical devices that have FDA premarket approval from receiving compensation. Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(10):800-803. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.10.hlaw1-1010.
Letter to the Editor Oct 2019 Response to “Will We Code for Default ECMO?”: Clarifying the Scope of Do-Not-ECMO Orders Jacob A. Blythe, MA, Sarah E. Wieten, PhD, and Jason N. Batten, MD, MA The authors further consider the merits of preventing ECMO from becoming a default treatment. AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E926-929. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.926.
Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Option Comparison Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6b-0501.
Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Additional Information Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6c-0501.
Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look, Option Assessment Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6a-0501.
Case and Commentary Jan 2005 Disclosure and Patient Information: Mr. Douglas's Angiogram Gets a Second Look Faith Lagay, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(1):28-34. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2005.7.1.ccas6-0501.
Health Law Oct 2010 Testing Manufacturer Liability in FDA-Approved Device Malfunction Ryan Bailey and Kristin E. Schleiter, JD, LLM The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., may prevent consumers injured by medical devices that have FDA premarket approval from receiving compensation. Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(10):800-803. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.10.hlaw1-1010.