This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Otolaryngol. 1964;80(5):483-484.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In the Cleveland Clinic Quarterly for April, 1964, Dr. Carl Wasmuth¹ discusses the use of new and experimental drugs on human patients. A similar problem may be proposed by a new surgical procedure. The Kansas Supreme Court recently stated that "Anglo-American law starts with the premise of thorough-going self-determination; each man is considered to be master of his own body and he may, if of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment, and while a doctor might well believe that an operation or form of treatment is desireable or necessary, the law does not permit him to substitute his own judgement for that of the patient by any artifice or deception."

Further clarification of the legal requirements for trying a new experimental drug or operation on a patient is found in American Jurisprudence which states that "although it is the duty of a . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?