Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T04:18:09.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To the Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Madeline M. Motta
Madeline M. Motta*
Affiliation:
Comparative Law Institute, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, PQ, Canada
*
MadelineMMotta@AOL.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Letter from the Editor
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 634 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

References

Litton, P. and Miller, F. G., “A Normative Justification for Distinguishing the Ethics of Clinical Research from the Ethics of Medical Care,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no. 3 (2005): 566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litton and Miller use therapeutic orientation, therapeutic beneficence and medical care ethic interchangeably.Google Scholar
Bloche, M. G. and Marks, J. H., “When Doctors Go to War,” N. Engl. J. Med 352 (2005): 3; See also Wiesel, E., “Without Conscience,” N. Engl. J. Med. 352 (2005): 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 5.Google Scholar
State v. Fishel, 228 Md. 189, 179 A 2d 349 (1962); Betesh v. United States, 400 F. Sup. 238 (D.C. 1974); Parslow v. Masters [1993] 6 W.W.R. 273;.Google Scholar
Morreim, E. H., “The Clinical Investigator as Fiduciary: Discarding a Misguided Idea,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no. 3 (2005): 586–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg v. Wynrib (1992) 92 DLR (4th) 449 a physician who supplied painkillers to a patient he knew was addicted in return for sexual favors was liable for breach of his fiduciary obligation to her.Google Scholar
Halushka v. University of Saskatchewan, [1966] 53 D.L.R. (2d) 436 (C.A.)Google Scholar
Id. at 445; see also, Frame v. Smith (1987) 42 DLR (4th) 81 at 99, the seminal Canadian case that sets out three general characteristics of relationships in which a fiduciary obligation may be imposed.Google Scholar
Gomez v. Comite excutif Conseil des Medecins, Dentistes et Pharmaciens de l'Hopital Universitaire de Quebec, (2001) J.Q. No. 5544Google Scholar