Michaelis Bernhardi Valentini ... Pandectae medico-legales, sive Responsa medico-forensia ex archivis Academiarum celebriorum scriptisque probatissimorum medicorum deprompta ac... latinitate donata. Cum introductionibus generalibus... Accedunt authoris Declamationes panegyricae, Polychresta exotica et Dissert. epistolicae varii argumenti.

Mode of access: Internet.

Pauli Zacchiae Romani ... Quaestionum medico-legalium : tomus primus [-tertius]

CCPB000219746-4 (t. III)

Novus Zacchias sive Opera magna celeberrimi Pauli Zacchiae ... sub inscriptione quaestionum medico-legalium /

Mode of access: Internet.

Pauli Zacchiae Romani ... Quaestiones medico-legales /

Mode of access: Internet.

Michaelis Bernhardi Valentini,... Pandectae medico-legales, sive Responsa medico-forensia ex archivis academiarum celebriorum scriptisque probatissimorum medicorum deprompta ac... latinitate donata. Cum introductionibus generalibus... Accedunt authoris Declamationes panegyricae, Polychresta exotica et Dissert. epistolicae varii argumenti.

Mode of access: Internet.

Michaelis Berhhardi Valentini ... Novellae medico-legales, seu responsa medico forensi ... cum introductione generali ...

Contiene con portada propia "Michaelis Berhhardi Valentini supplementum pandectarum medico-legalium ...", en p. (1229)

Michaelis Bernhardi Valentini ... Corpus juris medico-legale, constans e Pandectis, Novellis & Authenticis jatrico-forensibus : editio novissima, casibus utilissimis recentissimis & hactenus inauditis aucta : accedunt Labyrinthi studii medici feliciter superandi, declamatione panegyrica auspicali recitati /

Mode of access: Internet.

Medicina forensis, praeter partes consuetas, primas lineas jurisprudentiae medico-militaris et veterinario-civilis ... /

Mode of access: Internet.

Disertacion medico-clinica-politico-forense : por la que se manifiestan las principales materias, en las que deben ser instruidos los Practicantes de Medicina ... /

Mode of access: Internet.

Examining moderators of the hindsight bias in the context of civil legal decision -making: Counterfactuals, causal proximity, and self -referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. ^ In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. ^ Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.^

Examining Moderators of the Hindsight Bias in the Context of Civil Legal Decision-Making: Counterfactuals, Causal Proximity, and Self-Referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.

An Ethical and Legal Framework for Physicians as Surrogate Decision-Makers for Their Patients.

In Western industrialized countries, it is well established that legally competent individuals may choose a surrogate healthcare decision-maker to represent their interests should they lose the capacity to do so themselves. There are few limitations on who they may select to fulfill this function. However, many jurisdictions place restrictions on or prohibit the patient's attending physician or other provider involved with an individual's care to serve in this role. Several authors have previously suggested that respect for the autonomy of patients requires that there be few (if any) constraints on whomever they may appoint as a proxy. In this essay we revisit this topic by first providing a survey of current state laws governing this activity. We then analyze the clinical and ethical circumstances in which potential difficulties could arise. We take a more nuanced and circumspect view of prior suggestions that patients should have virtually unfettered liberty to choose their healthcare proxies. We suggest a strategy to balance the freedom of patients' right to choose their surrogates with fiduciary duty of the state as regulator of medical practice. We identify six domains of possible concern with such relationships and suggest straightforward methods of mitigating their potential negative effects that could be plausibly be incorporated into physician practice.