195 research outputs found
Le mineur dans la relation de soin. Introduction
Dans le droit de la santĂ©, les droits du mineurs se sont accrus. Le principe de lâautoritĂ© parentale est remis en cause dans plusieurs domaines, notamment celui de la contraception et de lâinterruption de grossesse. En gĂ©nĂ©ralisant lâautonomie du mineur, la loi du 4 mars 2002, relative aux droits de malades, et celle du 9 aoĂ»t 2004, relative Ă la santĂ© publique, ont amplifiĂ© ce mouvement. Cependant, le mĂ©decin peut se voir confrontĂ© Ă des situations dĂ©licates entre respect de ces nouveaux droits du mineurs et autoritĂ© parentale. En effet, lâautoritĂ© parentale reste le cadre naturel de la protection du mineur, notamment de sa santĂ©, et le mĂ©decin se doit dâobtenir lâaccord des parents avant de pratiquer les soins nĂ©cessaires. Quelle doit ĂȘtre lâattitude du mĂ©decin devant un Ă©ventuel conflit familial ? Câest la question Ă laquelle nous allons tenter de rĂ©pondre durant cette journĂ©e
Comment initier une mesure de protection juridique ?
La rĂ©forme de mars 2007 est forte dâun impact non nĂ©gligeable sur la façon dâinitier une mesure de protection juridique concernant les majeurs vulnĂ©rables. Ă cĂŽtĂ© des mesures judiciaires de protection classiques (sauvegarde de justice, curatelle et tutelle), qui restent majoritaires, vient sâajouter une nouvelle mesure de protection de nature conventionnelle : le mandat de protection future. Les auteurs se proposent de rappeler de maniĂšre pragmatique la procĂ©dure afin dâinitier une mesure de protection
Homicide et enfant à naßtre : une occasion manquée
The ruling of June 30, 1999 was one of the first significant rulings given by the French Supreme Court with regard to the criminalization of unintentional feticide. The question posed essentially asked whether a physician who committed a fault leading to the death of a fetus could be accused of manslaughter, which is a criminal offense under Article 221-6 of the French Criminal Code? The Court ruled not to describe this as feticide. It upheld this position in several subsequent rulings, considering that the unborn child, even when viable, was not a human being equipped with a legal personality. Early on, the French doctrine displayed shock at the fact that no criminal offense was recognized and, in its majority, it condemned the Supreme Court\u27s position, both on legal arguments and extra-legal arguments. Case law was stable until February 4, 2014, when a criminal court sentenced a motorist for the manslaughter of a six-month old fetus, following its death in utero. On appeal, one year later, the Court ultimately upheld the position of the French Supreme Court
The problem with medical research on tissue and organ samples taken in connection with forensic autopsies in France
Currently, in France, it is legally impossible to conduct scientific research on tissue and organ samples taken from forensic autopsies. In fact, the law schedules the destruction of such samples at the end of the judicial investigation, and the common law rules governing cadaver research cannot be applied to the forensic context.
However, nothing seems in itself to stand in the way of such research since, despite their specific nature, these samples from forensic autopsies could be subject, following legislative amendments, to common law relating to medical research on samples taken from deceased persons. But an essential legislative amendment, firstly to allow the Biomedicine Agency to become authorized to issue a research permit and secondly, to change the research conditions in terms of the non-opposition of the deceased to said research.
Such an amendment would be a true breakthrough because it would allow teams to continue to move forward calmly in research, and allow this research to be placed within a legal framework, which would promote international exchanges
Proof of patient information: Analysis of 201 judicial decisions
INTRODUCTION: The ruling by the French Court of Cassation dated February 25, 1997 obliged doctors to provide proof of the information given to patients, reversing more than half a century of case law. In October 1997, it was specified that such evidence could be provided by "all means", including presumption. No hierarchy in respect of means of proof has been defined by case law or legislation. The present study analyzed judicial decisions with a view to determining the means of proof liable to carry the most weight in a suit for failure to provide due patient information.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective qualitative study was conducted for the period from January 2010 to December 2015, by a search on the LexisNexis JurisClasseur website. Two hundred and one judicial decisions relating to failure to provide due patient information were selected and analyzed to study the characteristics of the practitioners involved, the content of the information at issue and the means of proof provided. The resulting cohort of practitioners was compared with the medical demographic atlas of the French Order of Medicine, considered as exhaustive.
RESULTS: Two hundred and one practitioners were investigated for failure to provide information: 45 medical practitioners (22±3%), and 156 surgeons (78±3%) including 45 orthopedic surgeons (29±3.6% of surgeons). Hundred and ninety-three were private sector (96±1.3%) and 8 public sector (4±1.3%). Hundred and one surgeons (65±3.8% of surgeons), and 26 medical practitioners (58±7.4%) were convicted. Twenty-five of the 45 orthopedic surgeons were convicted (55±7.5%). There was no significant difference in conviction rates between surgeons and medical practitioners: odds ratio, 1.339916; 95% CI [0.6393982; 2.7753764] (Chi test: p=0.49). Ninety-two practitioners based their defense on a single means of proof, and 74 of these were convicted (80±4.2%). Forty practitioners based their defense on several means of proof, and 16 of these were convicted (40±7.8%). There was a significant difference in conviction rate according to reliance on single or multiple evidence of delivery of information: odds ratio, 0.165; 95% CI [0.07; 0.4] (Chi test: p=1.1Ă10).
DISCUSSION: This study shows that surgeons, and orthopedic surgeons in particular, are more at risk of being investigated for failure to provide due patient information (D=-0.65 [-0.7; -0.6]). They are not, however, more at risk of conviction (p=0.49). Being in private practice also appeared to be a risk factor for conviction of failure to provide due information. Offering several rather than a single means of proof of delivery of information significantly reduces the risk of conviction (p=1.1Ă10).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: Retrospective study
Le prĂ©judice moral nĂ© du dĂ©faut dâinformation du patient
Le dĂ©faut dâinformation du patient sur les risques dâun acte mĂ©dical pourrait-il ĂȘtre constitutif dâun prĂ©judice moral dit « prĂ©judice dâimprĂ©paration » alors quâaucune perte de chance ne peut ĂȘtre retenueÂ
LâimmunitĂ© indemnitaire du mĂ©decin salariĂ© ne profite pas Ă son assureur. Ă propos de Civ. 1, 12 juillet 2007
Selon un arrĂȘt du 12 juillet 2007 de la Cour de cassation, lâassureur de responsabilitĂ© civile de lâĂ©tablissement de soins, tenu, en sa qualitĂ© de commettant, pour responsable du dommage causĂ© par son prĂ©posĂ©, peut exercer un recours subrogatoire contre lâassureur du salariĂ©
Faut-il reconnaĂźtre lâ« alĂ©a chirurgical » ?
Depuis plusieurs annĂ©es, la jurisprudence considĂšre de maniĂšre distincte la faute de technique opĂ©ratoire. Lâobligation dâexactitude du geste opĂ©ratoire sâest vue renforcĂ©e et depuis 1997, il semblait acquis que la faute technique puisse ĂȘtre retenue dĂšs lors que le praticien « porte atteinte Ă un organe ou Ă un tissu quâil nâĂ©tait pas nĂ©cessaire de toucher pour rĂ©aliser lâintervention ». Pourtant, dans certaines situations, le dommage nâest pas en rapport avec un manquement aux rĂšgles de lâart, mais liĂ© Ă une complication inhĂ©rente Ă la technique. La Cour de cassation avait toujours refusĂ© lâidĂ©e dâun « alĂ©a chirurgical » et reconnu que toute atteinte dâun organe, autre que ceux visĂ©s lors de lâintervention, rĂ©vĂ©lait obligatoirement une imprudence du chirurgien. Pourtant, en reconnaissant comme fautif un chirurgien qui a respectĂ© les rĂšgles de lâart, le juge risque de sâĂ©loigner des principes de la responsabilitĂ© mĂ©dicale. Des arrĂȘts rendus ces trois derniĂšres annĂ©es nous amĂšnent Ă rediscuter lâopportunitĂ© de reconnaĂźtre lâexistence dâun alĂ©a chirurgical
Updated review of postmortem biochemical exploration of hypothermia with a presentation of standard strategy of sampling and analyses.
Hypothermia is defined as a core body temperature below 35°C and can be caused by environmental exposure, drug intoxication, metabolic or nervous system dysfunction. This lethal pathology with medico-legal implications is complex to diagnose because macroscopic and microscopic lesions observed at the autopsy and the histological analysis are suggestive but not pathognomonic. Postmortem biochemical explorations have been progressively developed through the study of several biomarkers to improve the diagnosis decision cluster. Here, we present an updated review with novel biomarkers (such as catecholamines O-methylated metabolites, thrombomodulin and the cardiac oxyhemoglobin ratio) as well as some propositional interpretative postmortem thresholds and, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time, we present the most adapted strategy of sampling and analyses to identify biomarkers of hypothermia. For our consideration, the most relevant identified biomarkers are urinary catecholamines and their O-methylated metabolites, urinary free cortisol, blood cortisol, as well as blood, vitreous humor and pericardial fluid for ketone bodies and blood free fatty acids. These biomarkers are increased in response either to cold-mediated stress or to bioenergetics ketogenesis crisis and significantly contribute to the diagnosis by exclusion of death by hypothermia
- âŠ