Conflicts of interest affecting those who participate in staff privileges matters

HEC Forum

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 188-227

  Spece Jr , Roy G ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSUMER; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HOSPITAL PERSONNEL; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL STAFF; PHYSICIAN; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REVIEW;

EID: 0042814950     PISSN: 09562737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024905209404     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Mashaw JL. Administrative due process: The quest for a dignitary theory. Boston University Law Review, 1981; (61): 885.
2. Saks MJ and Blanck PD. Justice improved: The unrecognized benefits of aggregation and sampling in the trial of mass torts. Stanford Law Review, 1992; 44: 815.
3. Sturm SP. A normative theory of public law remedies. Georgia Law Journal, 1991; (79): 1355.
4. Mashaw JL. The Supreme Court's due process calculus for administrative adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three factors in search of a theory of value. University of Chicago Law Review, 1976; 44: 28.
5. Michelman F. Formal and associational aims in procedural due process. In: Pennock J and Chapman J; eds. Due process: Nomos: XVIII. New York: NYU Press; 1977.
6. Saphire RB. Specifying due process values: Toward a more responsive approach to procedural protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1978; 127: 111.
7. Redish MH and Marshall LC. Adjudicatory independence and the values of procedural due process. Yale Law Journal, 1986; 95: 455.
8. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SL, et al. eds. Health law (Practitioner Treatise Series). St. Paul, MN: West Group; 2000.
9. Erde EL. Conflicts of interest in medicine: A philosophical and ethical morphology. In Spece R et al. eds. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
10. Morrison AW. An analysis of anti-kickback and self-referral law in modern health care. Journal of Legal Medicine, 2000, 21: 351-394.
11. McAuliffe BE. The changing world of HMO liability under ERISA, Journal of Legal Medicine, 2001; 22: 77, 104-105.
12. Dzienkowski JS; ed. Professional responsibility standards, rules & statutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 2002.
13. Neyer FJ, Lang FR. Blood is thicker than water. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003; 84(2): 310-321.
14. King KE and Kilby M. Fifth amendment at trial. Georgia Law Journal, 2002; 90: 1690-1707.
15. Lanzarone MR. Note: Professional discipline: Unfairness and inefficiency in the administrative process. Fordham Law Review, 1983; 51: 818-837.
16. Manweiler K. Somewhere over the rainbow and through the looking glass: Administrative law practice and procedure. Advocate, 2002; 45: 16-18.
17. Wolfe JS, Proszek LB. Interaction dynamics in federal administrative decision making: Of the inquisitorial judge and the adversarial system. Tulsa Law Journal. 1997; 33: 293-347.
18. Asimow M. The administrative judiciary: ALJ'S in historical perspective, 20 J. Nat'l A.Admin.L.Judges, 2000; 20: 157-165.
19. Mintz BW. Administrative separation of functions: OSHA and the NLRB, Catholic University Law Review, 1998; 47: 877-917.
20. Morgan DR, Book review: Law's empire. Md. L. Rev. 1988; 47: 557-610.
21. Simons KW. The logic of egalitarian norms. Boston University Law Review, 2000; 80: 693-771.
22. Coons JE and Brennan PM. Nature and human equality. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1995; 40: 287-334.
23. Gold ME, Todd SA, Spiegler C, et al. When the drug trial fails: An approach to clinical drug studies. AANA Journal, 1999; 67(6): 505-512.
24. Spece R, Shimm D. and Buchanan A; eds. Conflicts of interest in clinical practice and research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
25. Spece R. The case against Arizona medical malpractice panels. Detroit Law Review, 1985; 63: 7.
26. Sward EE. Values, ideology and the evolution of the adversary system. Indiana Law Journal, 1988/89; 64: 301-355.
27. Nowak JE and Rotunda RD. Constitutional law, sixth edition. St. Paul Minn.: West Group; 2000.
28. Bucy PH. Civil prosecution of health care fraud. Wake Forest Law Review, 1995; 30: 693-757.
29. Horner SL, The health care quality improvement act of 1986: Its history, provisions, applications and implications. Amercan Journal of Law and -Medicine, 1990; 16: 453-496.
30. Wilson J. The definitional problems with "moral turpitude." J.Legal Prof, 1991; 16: 261-273.
31. Spece RG and Marchalonis JJ. Fourth amendment restrictions on scientific research misconduct proceedings at public institutions, health matrix. Journal of Law-Medicine, 2001; 11 (2): 571-626.