Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Medical innovation laws: an unnecessary innovation|
|Citation:||Australian Health Review, 2016; 40(3):282|
|Abstract:||Objective: This paper aims to demonstrate that any suggestion that there is a need for specific innovation laws is flawed. Innovation is central to good medical practice and is adequately supported by current law. Methods: The paper reviews the nature of medical innovation and outlines recent attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws aimed at encouraging’ and ‘supporting’ innovation. The current legal framework is outlined and the role of the law in relation to medical innovation explored. Results: The analysis demonstrates the cyclic relationship between medical advancement and the law and concludes that there is no requirement for specific innovation laws. Conclusions: The law not only supports innovation and development in medical treatment but encourages it as central to a functioning medical system. There is no need to introduce specific laws aimed at medical innovation; to do so represents an unnecessary legal innovation and serves to complicate matters. What is known about the topic? Over recent months, there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the law in the context of medical innovation. This was driven by the attempts in the UK to introduce specific laws in the Medical Innovation Bill. The general subject matter – negligence and the expected standard of care in the provision of treatment – is very well understood, but not in cases where the treatment can be described as innovative. The general rhetoric in both the UK and Australia around the Medical Innovation Bill demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position of the law with regards to innovative treatment. What does this paper add? This paper adds clarity to the debate. It presents the law and explains the manner in which the law can operate around innovative treatment. The paper asserts that medical innovation is both supported and encouraged by existing legal principles. What are the implications for practitioners? The paper presents an argument that can guide the policy position in this area. It also provides clarity around the legal position and expected standard of care for those who are introducing innovative medical treatment.|
|Keywords:||Humans; Diffusion of Innovation; Delivery of Health Care; Australia; Inventions|
|Rights:||Journal compilation © AHHA 2016|
|Appears in Collections:||Public Health publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.