Ethical and Legal Issues in Decision Support

  • Kenneth W. Goodman
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Discrete maladies or illnesses tend to produce particular signs and symptoms. This natural correlation makes possible the process of diagnosis and prognosis. In fact, so strong is our belief in the regularity of signs and symptoms that the process has long been regarded as straightforward, if not easy: “...there is nothing remarkable,” Hippocrates suggested some 2,400 years ago, “in being right in the great majority of cases in the same district, provided the physician knows the signs and can draw the correct conclusions from them”.1

Keywords

Decision Support Decision Support System Legal Issue Clinical Decision Support System Medical Informatics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hippocrates. Prognosis. In Lloyd GER, ed. Hippocratic Writings, translated by Chadwick J, Mann WN. London: Penguin Books 1983:170–185.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller RA, Schaffner KF, Meisel A. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of computer programs in clinical medicine. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102:529–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Dombal FT. Ethical considerations concerning computers in medicine in the 1980s. J Med Ethics 1987; 13:179–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller RA. Why the standard view is standard: people, not machines, understand patients’ problems. J Med Philos 1990; 15:581–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman KW, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller RA, Goodman KW. Ethical challenges in the use of decision-support software in clinical practice. In: Goodman KW, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997:102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berner ES, Webster GD, Shugerman AA et al. Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1792–1796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorace IM, Berman JJ, Carnahan GE et al. PRELOG: precedence logic inference software for blood donor deferral. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appi Med Care 1991: 976–977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boon ME, Kok LP. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip through human screening of Pap smears. Diag Cytopath 1993; 9:411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodman KW. Bioethics and health informatics: an introduction. In: Goodman KW, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forrow L, Wartman SA, Brock DW. Science, ethics, and the making of clinical decisions. IAMA 1988; 259:3161–3167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodman KW. Outcomes, futility, and health policy research. In: Goodman KW, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997:116–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brody BA. The ethics of using ICU scoring systems in individual patient management. Prob Crit Care 1989; 3:662–670.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brannigan VM, Dayhoff RE. Medical informatics: the revolution in law, technology, and medicine. J Legal Med 1986; 7:1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller RA. Legal issues related to medical decision-support systems. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1989; 6:75–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mortimer H. Computer-aided medicine: present and future issues of liability. Computer Law J 1989; 9:177–203.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turley TM. Expert software systems: the legal implications. Computer Law J 1988; 8:455–477.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hafner AW, Filipowicz AB, Whitely WP. Computers in medicine: liability issues for physicians. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1989; 6:185–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beier B. Liability and responsibility for clinical software in the Federal Republic of Germany. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1987; 25:237–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brahams D, Wyatt J. Decision aids and the law. Lancet 1918; ii:632–634.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allaert FA, Dussere L. Decision support system and medical liability. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1992:750–753.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birnbaum LN. Strict products liability and computer software. Computer Law J 1988; 8:135–156.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gill CJ. Medical expert systems: grappling with the issues of liability. High Tech Law J 1987; 1:483–520.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Snapper JW. Responsibility for computer-based decisions in health care. In: Goodman KW, ed. Ethics, Computing and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Munsey RR. Trends and Events in FDA regulation of medical devices over the last fifty years. Food and Drug Law I 1995; 50:163–177.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Public Law No. 75–717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), as amended 21 U.S.C. Sections 301 et seq (1988).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kessler DA, Pape SM, Sundwall DN. The federal regulation of medical devices. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:357–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Public Law No. 94–295, 90 Stat. 539 (1976), codified at 21 U.S.C. Sections 360c et seq (1982).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brannigan VM. Software quality regulation under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990: hospitals are now the canaries in the software mine. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1991:238–242.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Food and Drug Administration. FDA regulation of medical device software. (Document prepared for an FDA Software Policy Workshop, Sept. 3–4, 1996, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.). http://www.fda.gOv//cdrh/ost/points.html.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Policy for the Regulation of Computer Products, draft, 13 November 1989. Rockville, Maryland: FDA, CDRH, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Young FE. Validation of medical software: present policy of the Food and Drug Administration. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:628–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth W. Goodman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations