Confidentiality and the AMA's new code of ethics: An imprudent formulation?

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 165, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 327-329

  Kuhse, Helga ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CONFIDENTIALITY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SHORT SURVEY;

EID: 0029846977     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb124994.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (11)

1. Australian Medical Association. AMA Code of Ethics. Canberra: AMA, 1996.
2. World Medical Association. International Code of Medical Ethics. The World Medical Association handbook of declarations. The World Medical Association, 1985.
3. Ragg M. Code of ethics falls short of the ideal. Aust Doctor 1996 Feb 9: 20.
4. Lamont L. Ethics code worries doctors. Sydney Morning Herald 1996 Jan 4: 3.
5. Costa C. Dobbing doctors risk losing their patients' trust. Sydney Morning Herald 1996 Jan 4: 9.
6. Chapman S. Doctors as Delilahs: new ethics code causes row. BMJ 1996; 312: 78.
7. Chan G. GPs to divulge patients' secrets. The Australian 1996 Jan 3: 1.
8. Woollard K. When keeping a secret threatens other lives. Aust Med 1995 Nov 20: 4.
9. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976); 131 California Reporter 14 1976 Jul 1.
10. Raginsky BB. Hypnotic recall of aircrash cause. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1969; 17: 1-19.
11. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of medical ethics. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 422-423.