Physician autonomy vs. Sself-regulation: You an't have one without the other

Ethics and Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 111-120

  Khaliq, Amir A ^a   Mwachofi, Ari K ^a   Broyles, Robert W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859987070     PISSN: 0266688X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. The World Medical Association (WMA). 2005. Policy. Available at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/ a21htm
2. Irvine D. The performance of doctors: professionalism and self-regulation in a changing world. British Medical Journal. 1997;314(7093):1540-2. Available at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7093/1540 (Pubitemid 27216075)
3. Yeon H. B. , Lovett DA, Zurakowski D, Herndon JH. Physician Discipline. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2006;88: 2091-6. (Pubitemid 44352757)
4. Cruess S. R., Cruess R. L. The medical profession and self-regulation: A current challenge. Virtual Mentor. 2005;7(4). Available at http://www. virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/04/oped1-0504.html
5. Rothman D. J. Medical professionalism: focusing on the real issues. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(17): 1284-6. (Pubitemid 30235961)
6. Aarons D. E. Ethics, liabilities and licensing to practice. West Indian Medical Journal. 2007;56(30:208-12.
7. Alper, P. R. Many Perversions of Peer Review Process. San Mateo County Medical Association Bulletin. February 2006. 55(1). Available at http://www.smcma.org/Bulletin/BulletinIssues/ Feb06issue/ManyPerversions.html
8. Hall, B. G. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and Physician Peer Reviews: Success or Failure? University of South Dakota Elder Law Forum. Available at http://www.usd.edu/elderlaw/student-papers-f2003/health-care- quality-improvement-act.htm
9. AMA - The American Medical Association. Inappropriate peer review. Report of the Board of Trustees - Report 24-A-08. Available at http://www.ama-assn. org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/bot24.doc
10. Leiker, M. Federal appeals court reverses lower court ruling; reaffirms immunity for hospitals and physicians in peer review cases. Wisconsin Medical Journal (WMJ). 2008. 107(7):344-6.
11. Mills D. H. Medical peer review: the need to organize a protective approach. Health Matrix. 1991; 1(1):67-76.
12. Horner S. L. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: its history, provisions, applications and implications. American Journal of Law and Medicine. 1990. 16(4):455-98.
13. FitzGerald R. M. , Howarth B. M. Are hospital peer committees immune from federal antitrust liability? Medical Group Management Journal. 1989. 36(1):14.
14. Butler R. E. Hospital peer review committees: privileges of confidentiality and immunity Specialty Law Digest - Health Care. 1983. 5(7):7-31
15. Halpern A. Evidence discovery and "medical peer review" committee privileges. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2000; 28(4):406-7.
16. Curran W. J. Medical peer review of physician competence and performance: legal immunity and the antitrust laws. New policies explored. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987; 316(10):597-8. (Pubitemid 17024482)
17. Curran W. J. Legal Immunity for medical peer-review programs. New policies explored. New England Journal of Medicine. 1989; 320(4):233-5. (Pubitemid 19034150)
18. Cassidy M. A. Peer review immunity: history, operation, and recent decisions - has HCQIA accomplished its goals? Health Care Law Monthly May 2002. 3-9.
19. Snelson E. Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Quality Assurance & Utilization Review. Spring 1992. 7(1):2-11
20. Abrams G. Attacking Bad Faith Peer Review: Is It a SLAPP. San Mateo County Medical Association Bulletin. 2006. 55(1). Available at http://www.smcma.org/Bulletin/BulletinIssues/ Feb06issue/AttackingBadFaith.html
21. Twedt S. The cost of courage: How the tables turn on doctors. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October 26, 2003. Available at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/ 03299/234499.stm
22. Chalifoux R. So what is a sham peer review? Medscape. November 15, 2005. Available at http:// www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515862
23. Semmelweis Society Available at http://www.semmelweis.org
24. Center for Peer Review. Available at http://www.peerreview.org
25. Smith L. E., Beatty P. The practice of medicine and its interface with medical regulation. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 1999;(1):58-9.
26. Knight S. GMC speeds up disciplinary action against doctors. British Medical Journal. 2000;320(7233):466.
27. Derbyshire R. C. How effective is medical self-regulation? Law and Human Behavior. 1983;7(2-3):193-202. (Pubitemid 13020570)
28. Bovbjerg R. R., Aliaga P., Gittler J. State discipline of physicians: assessing state medical boards through case studies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2006. Available at:http:// aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2006/ stdiscp.htm
29. American Medical Association. Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S. 2004. Available at https://catalog.ama-assn.org/MEDIA/ ProductCatalog/m270018-PCD-04- table-1.9.pdf?checkXwho=done
30. FSMB. Summary of 2007 Board Actions. Federation of State Medical Boards. 2007. Available at http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2007-SummarBoardActions.pdf
31. New South Wales Medical Board. Current De-registered Doctors. 2008. Available at http://www.nswmb.org.au/index.pl?page=135
32. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical Labor Force 2006. Available at http://www. aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10620
33. Medical Board of South Australia. Annual Report 2007-08. Available at http://www. medicalboardsa.asn.au/searchResults.php?searchWords= Deregistered+doctors
34. Washington Post. 2005. Available at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ articles/22755.php
35. Wolfe S. M., Resnevic K. 2008. Public Citizen's Health Research Group ranking of the rate of state medical board's serious disciplinary actions, 2005-2007. Public Citizen - the Health Research Group. HRG Publication #1838. Available at: http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7580&secID= 1158&catID=126
36. Kerr C., Scotland F. UK doctors may lose self-regulation. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2007;176(9):1264.
37. Ranson D. Ethical professional and legal regulation of medical practice. Journal of Law and Medicine. 2006;14(1):20-3.
38. Southgate L., Cox J., David T., Howes A., Johnson N., Jolly B., Macdonald E., McAvoy P., McCrorie P., Turner J. The assessment of poorly performing doctors: the development of the assessment programmes for the General Medical Council's Performance Procedures. Medical Education. December 2001. 35 Supplement 1:2-8. (Pubitemid 34015706)
39. Irvine D. Doctors in the UK: their new professionalism and its regulatory framework. Lancet. November 24, 2001. 358(9295):1807-10. (Pubitemid 33153013)
40. Paul C. Internal and external morality of medicine: lessons from New Zealand. British Medical Journal (BMJ) 2000; 320:499-503. (Pubitemid 30173127)
41. IAMRA. Physician Information Exchange Working Group - Some Notable achievements. 2008. Available at http://www.iamra.com/pdf/ PIE%20Update%20September%202007.pdf
42. HPCB. The Edinburgh Agreement. Health Professionals Crossing Borders. 2007. Available at http://www.hpcb.eu/hpcb/activities/edinburgh-agreement.asp
43. Thomas D. The co-regulation of medical discipline: challenging medical peer review. Journal of Law and Medicine. 2004;11(30):382-9
44. Burns B. Physician, regulate thyself! Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2005;173(5):465.
45. Gutkin C. Revalidation and the CFPC Canadian Family Physician. 2005;51(10): 1439-40.
46. FMRAC Professional revalidation of physician. Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada. 2008. Available at: http://www.fmrac.ca/ policy/revalidation.eng.html
47. Smith S. A step towards effective self-regulation. British Medical Journal. 1999; 318(7189): 1017.
48. CMAJ. Can physicians regulate themselves? Editorial. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2005; 172(6): 717.