Regulating Health Care Safety: Enforcement and Responsibility Attribution in Response to Iatrogenic Harm

Carter, D; Rahmani, A; Brown, J

Regulating Health Care Safety: Enforcement and Responsibility Attribution in Response to Iatrogenic Harm

Carter, D

Rahmani, A Brown, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Thomson Reuters (Professional)
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Law and Medicine, 2022, 29, (1), pp. 1-19
Issue Date:: 2022-07-31

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	j09_v29_JLM_pt03_Carter_Art (002).pdf	Published version	407.49 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Carter, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8430-6351
dc.contributor.author	Rahmani, A
dc.contributor.author	Brown, J
dc.date.accessioned	2022-07-27T03:22:51Z
dc.date.available	2022-07-03
dc.date.available	2022-07-27T03:22:51Z
dc.date.issued	2022-07-31
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Law and Medicine, 2022, 29, (1), pp. 1-19
dc.identifier.issn	1320-159X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/159199
dc.description.abstract	The regulation of health care safety is undertaken in the name of the public and is motivated and justified by their protection. This regulatory action generates debate concerning the proper limits of responsibility attribution and enforcement, while the actions and opinion – both imagined and real – of the public loom large in this field. However, there exists limited knowledge of public opinion on key aspects of health care safety enforcement and responsibility attribution following iatrogenic harm. This article reports on the results of a survey-administered experimental study to determine how the Australian general public attributes responsibility, moral censure and enforcement actions in the event of health care safety failures in hospital and outpatient settings. The study provide evidence that the general public are sensitive to corporate and individual sources of error; attribute responsibility in a pluralistic manner; differentiate between recklessness and negligence; and will attempt both formal and social enforcement actions in response to harm.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Thomson Reuters (Professional)
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Law and Medicine
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 18 Law and Legal Studies, 22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
dc.title	Regulating Health Care Safety: Enforcement and Responsibility Attribution in Response to Iatrogenic Harm
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	29
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	18 Law and Legal Studies
utslib.for	22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HJ - Health Justice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2022-07-27T03:22:49Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Accepted
pubs.volume	29
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

The regulation of health care safety is undertaken in the name of the public and is motivated and justified by their protection. This regulatory action generates debate concerning the proper limits of responsibility attribution and enforcement, while the actions and opinion – both imagined and real – of the public loom large in this field. However, there exists limited knowledge of public opinion on key aspects of health care safety enforcement and responsibility attribution following iatrogenic harm. This article reports on the results of a survey-administered experimental study to determine how the Australian general public attributes responsibility, moral censure and enforcement actions in the event of health care safety failures in hospital and outpatient settings. The study provide evidence that the general public are sensitive to corporate and individual sources of error; attribute responsibility in a pluralistic manner; differentiate between recklessness and negligence; and will attempt both formal and social enforcement actions in response to harm.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/159199