LIVIVO - Search results -

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 49

Search options

Article: Medical Panels in Victoria, Australia and Alberta, Canada: Answering Medical Questions - Determining Matters of Fact and Law?

Mendelson, Danuta

2019 Volume 27, Issue 2, Page(s) 239–253

Abstract: Medical Panels undertake assessments of injured workers under compensation legislation in both Victoria, Australia, and Alberta, Canada. However, the status afforded the medical answers provided differs markedly between the two jurisdictions. This column ...

Abstract	Medical Panels undertake assessments of injured workers under compensation legislation in both Victoria, Australia, and Alberta, Canada. However, the status afforded the medical answers provided differs markedly between the two jurisdictions. This column considers the nature and implications of these differences.
MeSH term(s)	Alberta ; Canada ; Humans ; Victoria ; Workers' Compensation
Language	English
Publishing date	2019-10-10
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

This service is chargeable due to the Delivery terms set by subito. Orders including an article and supplementary material will be classified as separate orders. In these cases, fees will be demanded for each order.

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679) and the Australian My Health Record Scheme - A Comparative Study of Consent to Data Processing Provisions.

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2018 Volume 26, Issue 1, Page(s) 23–38

Abstract: As a general rule, lawfulness of data processing under the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679) (GDPR) is based on affirmative, unambiguous, voluntary, informed, and specific or "granular" consent to processing of their data, ... ...

Abstract	As a general rule, lawfulness of data processing under the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679) (GDPR) is based on affirmative, unambiguous, voluntary, informed, and specific or "granular" consent to processing of their data, including health data, by individuals referred to as data subjects. The GDPR grants data subjects the legal right to specifically agree to (or refuse) having their data processed in any of the ways statutorily defined as "processing". Individuals also have the legal right to be fully informed about each and every intended use of their data by data processors and controllers, and the right to refuse such use. In Australia, once registered on the My Health Record (MHR) system, "healthcare recipients" as patients-cum-data subjects are called under the MHR scheme, have the right to remove documents from their MHR files and block some health care providers from accessing their data. However, this study demonstrates that the notion of "standing" consent that the MHR scheme appears to have created does not conform to any of the principles and rules governing data subjects' consent rights under GDPR.
MeSH term(s)	Australia ; Computer Security/legislation & jurisprudence ; Delivery of Health Care ; Electronic Health Records/legislation & jurisprudence ; European Union ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Legislation, Medical
Language	English
Publishing date	2018-10-09
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: Voluntary Assisted Dying Legislation in Victoria: What Can We Learn from the Netherlands Experience?

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2018 Volume 25, Issue 1, Page(s) 30–45

Abstract: The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 Vic (VAD Bill) was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 20 October 2017. The Bill is partly based on the Majority Report provided by the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the ... ...

Abstract	The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 Vic (VAD Bill) was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 20 October 2017. The Bill is partly based on the Majority Report provided by the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Victorian Legislative Council following its Inquiry into End of Life Choices (June 2016). The Majority Report recommended introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation. The Bill is modelled on the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Voluntary Assisted Dying Final Report, which drafted 66 recommendations on legalising administration and supply of substances for the purpose of causing the person's death. The Victorian government accepted the 66 recommendations, which the Chair of the Ministerial Advisory Panel, Professor Brian Owler, described as detailing safe and compassionate framework for voluntary assisted dying in Victoria. This analysis will focus on matters of major concern relating to the VAD Bill, namely criteria for accessing voluntary assisted dying and in particular, the age threshold and decision-making capacity. The proposed legislation resembles the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act of April 2002 (the Netherlands); consequently, the discussion will draw on the Dutch experience over the past 15 years.
MeSH term(s)	Euthanasia ; Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary/legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Netherlands ; Suicide, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence
Language	English
Publishing date	2018-07-05
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Book: The interfaces of medicine and law

Mendelson, Danuta

the history of the liability for negligently caused psychiatric injury (nervous shock)

(Medico-legal series)

1998

Author's details	Danuta Mendelson
Series title	Medico-legal series
Language	English
Size	XXI, 319 S.
Publisher	Ashgate
Publishing place	Aldershot u.a.
Publishing country	Great Britain
Document type	Book
Note	Includes bibliographical references and index
HBZ-ID	HT011076316
ISBN	1-85521-924-7 ; 978-1-85521-924-3
Database	Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Shelf mark	Loan status	Location
1999 A 5269	order for loan	Magazin

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DOCTORS WHO ABUSE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2015 Volume 23, Issue 1, Page(s) 24–40

Abstract: This study examined 27 reports from disciplinary tribunals throughout Australia (save Tasmania where reports were not accessible) against medical practitioners who abused narcotic analgesics (often combined with other drugs of addiction) between 2010 and ...

Abstract	This study examined 27 reports from disciplinary tribunals throughout Australia (save Tasmania where reports were not accessible) against medical practitioners who abused narcotic analgesics (often combined with other drugs of addiction) between 2010 and 2015. The reports revealed that 12 medical practitioners were in their 40s; five in their 30s; and one person still in their 20s. Although the majority were general practitioners (15 out of 27), other medical specialties were also represented. Self-administered pethidine was the most prevalent opioid (11 out of 27) and was the only drug used alone. Morphine was self-administered by six doctors; the same number used high doses of Panadeine Forte, codeine and codeine phosphate. Fentanyl was abused by five doctors. Surprisingly, fewer medical practitioners appear to use propofol, and similar opiates such as tramadol (Tramol) and/or oxycodone (Endone). The examination of cases suggests lack of consistency in the imposition of professional sanctions and penalties by the relevant tribunals. To remedy this problem, it is suggested that disciplinary tribunals should apply the test of proportionality in the form of "reasonable necessity" when deciding whether to remove or suspend the addicted medical practitioner from the Register.
MeSH term(s)	Australia/epidemiology ; Employee Discipline/legislation & jurisprudence ; Employee Discipline/statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Physician Impairment/legislation & jurisprudence ; Physician Impairment/statistics & numerical data ; Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology
Language	English
Publishing date	2015-09
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: Disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate prescription of opioid medications by medical practitioners in Australia (2010-2014).

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2014 Volume 22, Issue 2, Page(s) 255–279

Abstract: An analysis of 32 cases reported between July 2010 and September 2014 by professional disciplinary tribunals in New South Wales and Victoria against medical practitioners found guilty of inappropriately prescribing Sch 8 medications (mainly opioids) and ... ...

Abstract	An analysis of 32 cases reported between July 2010 and September 2014 by professional disciplinary tribunals in New South Wales and Victoria against medical practitioners found guilty of inappropriately prescribing Sch 8 medications (mainly opioids) and Sch 4 drugs (mainly benzodiazepines) demonstrated, among others, a lengthy delay between the occurrence of the miscreant conduct and the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The study also raised questions about the appropriateness of utilising common criminal law theories of punishment and deterrence by non-judicial tribunals.
MeSH term(s)	Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage ; Australia ; Drug and Narcotic Control/legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Inappropriate Prescribing/legislation & jurisprudence ; Physicians/legislation & jurisprudence
Chemical Substances	Analgesics, Opioid
Language	English
Publishing date	2014-12
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article ; Legal Cases
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: Decriminalisation of abortion performed by qualified health practitioners under the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic).

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2012 Volume 19, Issue 4, Page(s) 651–666

Abstract: In 2008, the Victorian Parliament enacted the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) and amended the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to decriminalise terminations of pregnancy while making it a criminal offence for unqualified persons to carry out such procedures. The ...

Abstract	In 2008, the Victorian Parliament enacted the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) and amended the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to decriminalise terminations of pregnancy while making it a criminal offence for unqualified persons to carry out such procedures. The reform legislation has imposed a civil regulatory regime on the management of abortions, and has stipulated particular statutory duties of care for registered qualified health care practitioners who have conscientious objections to terminations of pregnancy. The background to, and the structure of, this novel statutory regime is examined, with a focus on conscientious objection clauses and liability in the tort of negligence and the tort of breach of statutory duty.
MeSH term(s)	Abortion, Induced/legislation & jurisprudence ; Australia ; Female ; Humans ; Malpractice/legislation & jurisprudence ; Physicians/legislation & jurisprudence ; Pregnancy
Language	English
Publishing date	2012-06
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article ; Legal Cases
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: Mental health legislation (civil) in Australia and China: A comparative perspective.

Mendelson, Danuta / Lin, Nuannuan

Journal of law and medicine

2018 Volume 23, Issue 4, Page(s) 762–779

Abstract: This comparative review of statutory provisions of Australian and Chinese law focuses on accessibility of mental health care, diagnosis, admission and treatment orders for involuntary patients in civil cases as well as discharge procedures. The ... ...

Abstract	This comparative review of statutory provisions of Australian and Chinese law focuses on accessibility of mental health care, diagnosis, admission and treatment orders for involuntary patients in civil cases as well as discharge procedures. The introduction contextualises the object of the comparative study, including key rights and principles that are used as the basis for analysis. Such factors as different political and legal systems, history, culture, and infrastructure resources of China and Australia form the background for the legal examination. Not surprisingly, these five factors, rather than statutory texts per se, are found to be the most important drivers of each country’s approach to the law of mental health. Two cases, XX v WW [2014] VSC 564 in Australia and Xu Lixin v Xu Canxing, Qingchun Psychiatric Rehabilitation Hospital of Shanghai [2015], known as the Right to Liberty Case, in China illustrate practical differences in legal approach to involuntary treatment. The comparative analysis concludes by identifying the most problematic aspects of the legislation in each country.
MeSH term(s)	Australia ; China ; Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence ; Health Policy ; Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence
Language	English
Publishing date	2018-08-22
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Comparative Study ; Journal Article ; Legal Cases
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article: From expert witness to defendant: abolition of expert witness protection and its implications.

Mendelson, Danuta

Journal of law and medicine

2012 Volume 20, Issue 2, Page(s) 250–260

Abstract: In Jones v Kaney [2011] 2 AC 398, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that in England and Wales (but not in Scotland), clients can sue expert witnesses in negligence and/or contract for work performed under their retainer, whether in civil or criminal ... ...

Abstract	In Jones v Kaney [2011] 2 AC 398, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that in England and Wales (but not in Scotland), clients can sue expert witnesses in negligence and/or contract for work performed under their retainer, whether in civil or criminal trials. The duties of expert witnesses in England are regulated by the Civil Procedure Rules and Protocols; the former also regulate the conduct of cases involving expert opinions. The legal context that led to the litigation is examined in the light of these rules, in particular, the nature of the allegations against Dr Kaney, a psychologist retained to provide psychiatric opinion. Jones v Kaney, as a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, is not a binding precedent in Australia. However, unlike statutory enactments, common law judgments are retrospective in their operation, which means that health care practitioners who follow a generally accepted practice today may still be sued for damages by their patients or clients in the future. By definition, the future, including the refusal by the Australian High Court to follow Kaney's abolition of expert witnesses' immunity from suit for breach of duty to their clients, cannot be predicted with certainty. Consequently, health care practitioners in Australia and other countries should be aware of the case, its jurisprudential and practical ramifications.
MeSH term(s)	Expert Testimony/legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Liability, Legal ; United Kingdom
Language	English
Publishing date	2012-12
Publishing country	Australia
Document type	Journal Article ; Legal Cases
ZDB-ID	1236328-5
ISSN	1320-159X
ISSN	1320-159X
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 4288: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (2.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

Article ; Online: The Duchess of Kingston's Case, the ruling of Lord Mansfield and duty of medical confidentiality in court.

Mendelson, Danuta

International journal of law and psychiatry

2012 Volume 35, Issue 5-6, Page(s) 480–489

Abstract: The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the ruling commonly cited as the original precedent(1) for the doctrine that, at common law, medical practitioners' duty of confidentiality to their patients does not apply to court testimony,(2) did not, in ...

Abstract	The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the ruling commonly cited as the original precedent(1) for the doctrine that, at common law, medical practitioners' duty of confidentiality to their patients does not apply to court testimony,(2) did not, in fact, establish any such theory. The ruling by Lord Mansfield was made in the context of cross-examination by the Crown of a medical witness in the course of the trial of the Duchess of Kingston (Duchess of Kingston's Case (1776) 20 Howell's State Trials 355; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 623; [1776] 1 Leach 146), and this article will look briefly at: (1) the fascinating life of Elizabeth Chudleigh, the Dowager Duchess of Kingston, and the main events that led to her trial for bigamy; (2) the cross-examination of Caesar Hawkins and the different perceptions of the scope of confidentiality held by 18th century lawyers on the one hand and medical practitioners on the other; (3) Lord Mansfield's ruling that witnesses cannot withhold from the court facts which the law considers to be in the public domain; (4) the subsequent wide interpretation, usually as judicial obiter dicta, of its final paragraph during the 19th century, including early jurisprudential responses to the principle of medical confidentiality; and (5) the influence of John Henry Wigmore's opposition to patients' evidentiary privilege at common law during the twentieth century.
MeSH term(s)	Australia ; Confidentiality/history ; Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence ; Expert Testimony/legislation & jurisprudence ; Forensic Psychiatry/legislation & jurisprudence ; History, 18th Century ; History, 19th Century ; Humans ; Physicians/legislation & jurisprudence
Language	English
Publishing date	2012-09
Publishing country	Netherlands
Document type	Historical Article ; Journal Article ; Legal Cases
ZDB-ID	304429-4
ISSN	1873-6386 ; 0160-2527
ISSN (online)	1873-6386
ISSN	0160-2527
DOI	10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.09.005
Database	MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Zs.A 1430: Show issues

Location:
Je nach Verfügbarkeit (siehe Angabe bei Bestand)
bis Jg. 1994: Bestellungen von Artikeln über das Online-Bestellformular
Jg. 1995 - 2021: Lesesall (1.OG)
ab Jg. 2022: Lesesaal (EG)

Order via subito

Details ▾
- See ZB MED holdings
- Order with fees

To top

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito

More links

Kategorien

In stock of ZB MED Cologne/Königswinter

Order via subito