Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback4 pages Free

There appears to be heightened concern among health care professionals about the liability implications of delivering alternative therapies, but little is know about malpractice law in this area. This article argues that when courts decide cases at the intersection between conventional and alternative medicine, they may judge conduct according to standards enunciated by (1) alternative medicine practitioners who regularly deliver the treatment at issue, (2) physicians who have established similar practices, or (3) conventional practitioners. The latter possibility raises troubling questions for physicians at the outset of the negligence inquiry. Available case law highlights the importance of ensuring that patients are fully informed about any alternative therapies they elect to receive as well as conventional treatments they may be forgoing, and that they expressly consent to treatment in light of this information--preferably in writing.

Originally published in: Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, v. 54, Fall 1999, pp. 173-176.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.