Technical autonomy with medicolegal risk for the midwife. Reflections on a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, 13 December 1983
Soutoul, J.H.; Pierre, F.
Revue Francaise de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique 81(3): 167-169
1986
ISSN/ISBN: 0035-290X PMID: 3704461 Document Number: 274835
Document emailed within 1 workday
Related Documents
Duffy, J. 1986: Supreme Court upholds District Court's Gramm-Rudman decision Health Law Vigil 9(14): 1-3Weber, R.D. 1994: Court of appeals decision in "Premier Plus" has wide ramifications Michigan Medicine 93(12): 9
Grosskopf, A.; Mondak, J.J. 1998: Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? the Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court Political Research Quarterly 51(3): 633-654
Flood, C.M.; Lewis, S. 2005: Courting trouble: the Supreme Court's embrace of private health insurance: use and misuse of social science evidence by the Supreme Court--how should Canadian governments respond? Healthcare Policy 1(1): 26-35
1986: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the Supreme Court decision Provider 12(9): 39-40
Meadors, G.M. 2008: Major U.S. Supreme Court decision on participant remedies under ERISA Journal of Medical Practice Management: Mpm 24(1): 39-40
Parmer-Larochelle, C. 1989: Supreme Court decision affects Medicare payment policies Healthcare Financial Management: Journal of the Healthcare Financial Management Association 43(2): 61-62
Charo, R.Alta. 2014: The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby Case: conscience, complicity, and contraception JAMA Internal Medicine 174(10): 1537-1538
Soutoul, J.H. 1994: Two twin girls, legal torts after a tubal sterilization failure, remain in the care of their parents, who were previously informed of this eventuality in writing. A decision of the administrative court of appeals in Nancy, September 30, 1993 Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 23(8): 932
Carlson, J.; Daly, R.; Zigmond, J. 2011: Appeals court blasts mandate. 11th circuit ruling sets up high court showdown Modern Healthcare 41(33): 4
Beckett, H.; Radford, J. 2016: 'Montgomery consent': decision of the UK Supreme Court. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [20151. [2015] UKSC 11; [2015] WLR 768 practising midwife 19(6): 27-29
Dagan, N. 2020: The Janus face of imprisonment: Contrasting judicial conceptions of imprisonment purposes in the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States Criminology-Criminal Justice 21(5): 633-649
Teichert, E. 2016: Appeals court ruling gives FTC merger challenges new life Modern Healthcare 46(40): 9
Sargos, P. 1998: Physicians' duty to inform in the jurisprudence of the Appeals Court Annales de Chirurgie Plastique et Esthetique 43(6): 668-673
Bostrom, B.A. 2002: In the Michigan Court of Appeals: People vs. Jack Kevorkian Issues in Law and Medicine 18(1): 57-64
1997: Supreme Court finds no 'right to die' Minnesota Medicine 80(8): 39
Zimmer, K.J. 2012: The Supreme Court has ruled...now what? South Dakota Medicine: the Journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association 65(8): 318-319
Brahams, D. 1985: Court of Appeals rules DHSS notice on family planning contrary to law Lancet 1(8419): 59-61
Galloro, V. 2002: Shelter for whistleblowers. Appeals court reinstates False Claims Act lawsuit Modern Healthcare 32(4): 18
Jones, R.M. 2012: Do the Supreme Court elections really matter? Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 53(9): 302-304