The ongoing anthrax vaccination case, Doe v Rumsfeld, tests whether the military can require participation in and punish refusal of a vaccination program while waiving informed consent.
Raphael P. Viscidi, MD and Keerti V. Shah, MD, DrPH
The arguments for mandatory vaccination with human papillomavirus vaccine differs from the justification for mandatory use of vaccines that protect against more easily transmitted diseases.
Clinical case examines physicians’ duties and risks during an epidemic. Commentaries address physician’s rights vs patients’ rights. Does the duty to treat always override personal or family concerns?
In quarantine situations, the actions of autonomous individuals are restricted to protect the health of the public. Physicians enforcing quarantine should be sympathetic and clear in communicating with those whose activities are being restricted.
In quarantine situations, the actions of autonomous individuals are restricted to protect the health of the public. Physicians enforcing quarantine should be sympathetic and clear in communicating with those whose activities are being restricted.
Clinical case examines physicians’ duties and risks during an epidemic. Commentaries address physician’s rights vs patients’ rights. Does the duty to treat always override personal or family concerns?
A review of the case of a physician accused of euthanizing four patients following Hurricane Katrina and the state attorney's unethical conduct in releasing information to the media.
Medical expertise includes knowledge of modern interventions as well as the incorporation of ethical considerations and patient goals as they relate to treatment decisions.