메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 350, Issue , 2015, Pages

Update on the UK law on consent Last week's case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board has important implications for doctors

(1)  Sokol, Daniel K a  

a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIAN; AWARENESS; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; NEGLIGENCE; NOTE; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHOULDER DYSTOCIA; UNITED KINGDOM; VAGINAL DELIVERY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PHYSICIAN;

EID: 84926217432     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h1481     Document Type: Note
Times cited : (77)

References (4)
  • 1
    • 84926228050 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) UKSC 11
    • Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11.
    • (2015)
  • 2
    • 84926198604 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Doctors should not cherry pick what information to give patients, court rules
    • Dyer C. Doctors should not cherry pick what information to give patients, court rules. BMJ 2015;350:h1414.
    • (2015) BMJ , vol.350 , pp. h1414
    • Dyer, C.1
  • 3
    • 84926193713 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
    • Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479.


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.