Physicians Say an Idaho House Bill That Would Criminalize Administering mRNA Vaccines Is an Attack on the Medical Profession-Even If It Doesn't Become Law.

This Medical News article discusses a bill introduced in Idaho that would ban administering mRNA vaccines.

Opioid use disorder and COVID-19: Implications for policy and practice.

ABSTRACT: Preliminary data suggest that opioid-related overdose deaths have increased subsequent to COVID-19. Despite national support for expanding the role of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs in serving patients with opioid use disorder, these clinicians are held to complex and stringent regulatory barriers. COVID-19 triggered significant changes from regulatory and federal agencies, yet disparate policies and regulations persist between physicians and PAs and NPs. The dual epidemics of COVID-19 and opioid use disorder highlight the inadequate infrastructure required to support patients, communities, and clinicians, and may serve as the catalyst for eliminating barriers to care.

Reciprocity and Liability Protections during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate.

Good Samaritan Clause.

This paper is entirely devoted to a new legal instrument called the "Good Samaritan Clause". Its legal recognition constitutes the legislator's response to the concerns raised by the medical community, in view of the unique situation in the country, but also in the world, relating to the prevention, counteraction and suppression of COVID-19. The assumption is that this instrument is to constitute a countertype that excludes the criminal unlawfulness of the act, due to the increased risk of mistakes made by the physicians involved in providing health services during the epidemic. The paper focuses primarily on the dogmatic and legal issues, discussing the catalogue of conditions needed for the application of the instrument mentioned in the title, but it also attempts to critically evaluate the introduced solution. The idea itself of introducing a solution affecting the scope of criminal liability of physicians is good, however, it requires legislative clarification as well.

[Decisions on the state of health of employees and applicants for work with the use of ICT media]. / Wydawanie orzeczen o stanie zdrowia pracowników i osób ubiegajacych sie o prace z wykorzystaniem teleinformatycznych srodków przekazu.

BACKGROUND: The applicable law permits the use of information and communications technology (ICT) media in the process of providing health services, including preventive examinations. The right to perform preventive examinations using ICT should not be identified with an absolute obligation in this respect. An occupational medicine doctor may refuse to perform a preventive examination remotely if the specificity of medical activities and patient safety require personal contact with the doctor. The state of the epidemic prompted the legislator to adopt solutions enabling employees to continue working on the basis of an invalid decision, provided that it expired after March 7, 2020. The obligation to perform preventive examinations has been suspended, as a result of which their conduction during the epidemic is pointless. However, the obligations of the employee and the employer must be fulfilled in this respect immediately, but not later than within 60 days from the date of the epidemic cancellation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study uses the method of analyzing the currently applicable legal provisions allowing the use of ICT in the provision of health services. In addition, regulations governing the possibility of obliging employees to work remotely during the epidemic were also analyzed, together with the non-performance of preventive examinations and admissibility of work under a decision which had expired before March 7, 2020. RESULTS: Current legal regulations are ambiguous and cause interpretation difficulties. The possibility of issuing decisions as a result of preventive examinations is a potential risk of liability for doctors who do not have specialist knowledge in the field of occupational medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The solutions of the Act on COVID-19 regarding the performance of preventive examinations introduce new rights and obligations for employees and employers as well as doctors. Their implementation is necessary due to the purpose of the newly introduced regulations, whose task is to minimize the risk of the COVID-19 infection. At the same time, it is necessary to adopt a unified position with regard to the rights and obligations of doctors issuing decisions for the purposes specified in the Labor Code. Med Pr. 2021;72(1):19-27.

Criminal medical liability in the context of Covid-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 infection causes to medical community many difficulties worldwide. In addition to its therapeutic problems, it can generate situations with high medico-legal risk to doctor who can see his criminal medical liability engaged. In fact, in Tunisia, this new infection imposes many specific legal obligations. Some of these obligations have recently been introduced, therefore still little or not known by doctors, despite the need for them to comply with. In this paper, we propose to analyse the circumstances of medical practice in Covid-19 pandemic period , which risk to engage the doctor's criminal medical liability, and to set out the sanctions incurred, in order to protect health professionals against the specific legal risk of this emerging disease.

Accelerated Graduation and the Deployment of New Physicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges and opportunities for medical schools in the United States. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe a unique collaboration between the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), the only public medical school in the state; the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center (UMMMC); and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Through this partnership, UMMS was able to graduate fourth-year medical students 2 months early and deploy them to UMMMC to care for patients and alleviate workforce shortages during the COVID-19 surge, which peaked in Massachusetts in April 2020. The authors describe how they determined if students had fulfilled graduation requirements to graduate early, what commencement and the accompanying awards ceremony looked like this year as virtual events, the special emergency 90-day limited license these new graduates were given to practice at UMMMC during this time, and the impact these new physicians had in the hospital allowing residents and attendings to be redeployed to care for COVID-19 patients.

Professional autonomy and liability of the resident doctor: Between the hammer and the anvil.

Within the regime of professional liability of doctors in training, the limits and the medico-legal aspects of their professional duties are not well-defined. The Italian Court of Cassation established in its sentence no. 26311/2019 that resident doctors do not work at hospitals just to receive their professional training. They are, indeed, licensed physicians and therefore bear full responsibility for the acts performed within the compass of their professional activity. The purpose of this article is to briefly define the possible consequences of this judgment.