Task force II: The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations

William L. Winters, Henry D. McIntosh, Melvin D. Cheitlin, Rebecca Elon, Thomas B. Graboys, Spencer B. King, Carolyn L Murdaugh, David Orentlicher, Thomas A. Ports, W. Gerald Rainer, Elliot Rapaport, William Y. Rial, Elijah Saunders, Daniel J. Ullyot, John G. Weg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

1. 1. The American College of Cardiology acknowledges the continuum of changing societal, medical and economic perspectives affecting traditional medical ethics. Primacy of patient responsibility remains paramount to the cardiovascular specialist who at the same time should participate in the development of broader societal programs. 2. 2. Medical decisions should be freely and jointly formulated by the patient and the cardiovascular specialist with appropriate sensitivity to such matters as mental competence, pertinent medical information and standards of care, sufficient time for contemplation, informed consent, patient right of refusal, physician right to refuse to provide inappropriate care and the right of patient, physician or third party payer to seek consultation or additional opinions. 3. 3. The cardiovascular specialist should make a special effort to clarify and document patient preferences regarding end-of-life treatment through some form of advance directive. 4. 4. The cardiovascular specialist bears a moral obligation to provide medical care to any patient who is HIV positive or has AIDS. 5. 5. A conflict of interest occurs when a cardiovascular specialist places personal or financial interest ahead of the welfare and health of a patient. Professional accountability should be established through local or regional peer review. 6. 6. The American College of Cardiology encourages and supports a renewed dedication to the principles of medical ethics, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular specialists are encouraged to participate in the promulgation of medical ethics by teaching and by example, individually and with others.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-16
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Organizations
Physicians
Medical Ethics
Patient Rights
Moral Obligations
Health Insurance Reimbursement
Medical Economics
Advance Directives
Conflict of Interest
Peer Review
Patient Preference
Social Responsibility
Anniversaries and Special Events
Standard of Care
Informed Consent
Mental Competency
Patient Care
Teaching
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Task force II : The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations. / Winters, William L.; McIntosh, Henry D.; Cheitlin, Melvin D.; Elon, Rebecca; Graboys, Thomas B.; King, Spencer B.; Murdaugh, Carolyn L; Orentlicher, David; Ports, Thomas A.; Rainer, W. Gerald; Rapaport, Elliot; Rial, William Y.; Saunders, Elijah; Ullyot, Daniel J.; Weg, John G.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1990, p. 11-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Winters, WL, McIntosh, HD, Cheitlin, MD, Elon, R, Graboys, TB, King, SB, Murdaugh, CL, Orentlicher, D, Ports, TA, Rainer, WG, Rapaport, E, Rial, WY, Saunders, E, Ullyot, DJ & Weg, JG 1990, 'Task force II: The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(90)90448-X
Winters, William L. ; McIntosh, Henry D. ; Cheitlin, Melvin D. ; Elon, Rebecca ; Graboys, Thomas B. ; King, Spencer B. ; Murdaugh, Carolyn L ; Orentlicher, David ; Ports, Thomas A. ; Rainer, W. Gerald ; Rapaport, Elliot ; Rial, William Y. ; Saunders, Elijah ; Ullyot, Daniel J. ; Weg, John G. / Task force II : The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1990 ; Vol. 16, No. 1. pp. 11-16.
@article{1d8270edfca64388b5e3856db7420de9,
title = "Task force II: The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations",
abstract = "1. 1. The American College of Cardiology acknowledges the continuum of changing societal, medical and economic perspectives affecting traditional medical ethics. Primacy of patient responsibility remains paramount to the cardiovascular specialist who at the same time should participate in the development of broader societal programs. 2. 2. Medical decisions should be freely and jointly formulated by the patient and the cardiovascular specialist with appropriate sensitivity to such matters as mental competence, pertinent medical information and standards of care, sufficient time for contemplation, informed consent, patient right of refusal, physician right to refuse to provide inappropriate care and the right of patient, physician or third party payer to seek consultation or additional opinions. 3. 3. The cardiovascular specialist should make a special effort to clarify and document patient preferences regarding end-of-life treatment through some form of advance directive. 4. 4. The cardiovascular specialist bears a moral obligation to provide medical care to any patient who is HIV positive or has AIDS. 5. 5. A conflict of interest occurs when a cardiovascular specialist places personal or financial interest ahead of the welfare and health of a patient. Professional accountability should be established through local or regional peer review. 6. 6. The American College of Cardiology encourages and supports a renewed dedication to the principles of medical ethics, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular specialists are encouraged to participate in the promulgation of medical ethics by teaching and by example, individually and with others.",
author = "Winters, {William L.} and McIntosh, {Henry D.} and Cheitlin, {Melvin D.} and Rebecca Elon and Graboys, {Thomas B.} and King, {Spencer B.} and Murdaugh, {Carolyn L} and David Orentlicher and Ports, {Thomas A.} and Rainer, {W. Gerald} and Elliot Rapaport and Rial, {William Y.} and Elijah Saunders and Ullyot, {Daniel J.} and Weg, {John G.}",
year = "1990",
doi = "10.1016/0735-1097(90)90448-X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "11--16",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Task force II

T2 - The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations

AU - Winters, William L.

AU - McIntosh, Henry D.

AU - Cheitlin, Melvin D.

AU - Elon, Rebecca

AU - Graboys, Thomas B.

AU - King, Spencer B.

AU - Murdaugh, Carolyn L

AU - Orentlicher, David

AU - Ports, Thomas A.

AU - Rainer, W. Gerald

AU - Rapaport, Elliot

AU - Rial, William Y.

AU - Saunders, Elijah

AU - Ullyot, Daniel J.

AU - Weg, John G.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - 1. 1. The American College of Cardiology acknowledges the continuum of changing societal, medical and economic perspectives affecting traditional medical ethics. Primacy of patient responsibility remains paramount to the cardiovascular specialist who at the same time should participate in the development of broader societal programs. 2. 2. Medical decisions should be freely and jointly formulated by the patient and the cardiovascular specialist with appropriate sensitivity to such matters as mental competence, pertinent medical information and standards of care, sufficient time for contemplation, informed consent, patient right of refusal, physician right to refuse to provide inappropriate care and the right of patient, physician or third party payer to seek consultation or additional opinions. 3. 3. The cardiovascular specialist should make a special effort to clarify and document patient preferences regarding end-of-life treatment through some form of advance directive. 4. 4. The cardiovascular specialist bears a moral obligation to provide medical care to any patient who is HIV positive or has AIDS. 5. 5. A conflict of interest occurs when a cardiovascular specialist places personal or financial interest ahead of the welfare and health of a patient. Professional accountability should be established through local or regional peer review. 6. 6. The American College of Cardiology encourages and supports a renewed dedication to the principles of medical ethics, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular specialists are encouraged to participate in the promulgation of medical ethics by teaching and by example, individually and with others.

AB - 1. 1. The American College of Cardiology acknowledges the continuum of changing societal, medical and economic perspectives affecting traditional medical ethics. Primacy of patient responsibility remains paramount to the cardiovascular specialist who at the same time should participate in the development of broader societal programs. 2. 2. Medical decisions should be freely and jointly formulated by the patient and the cardiovascular specialist with appropriate sensitivity to such matters as mental competence, pertinent medical information and standards of care, sufficient time for contemplation, informed consent, patient right of refusal, physician right to refuse to provide inappropriate care and the right of patient, physician or third party payer to seek consultation or additional opinions. 3. 3. The cardiovascular specialist should make a special effort to clarify and document patient preferences regarding end-of-life treatment through some form of advance directive. 4. 4. The cardiovascular specialist bears a moral obligation to provide medical care to any patient who is HIV positive or has AIDS. 5. 5. A conflict of interest occurs when a cardiovascular specialist places personal or financial interest ahead of the welfare and health of a patient. Professional accountability should be established through local or regional peer review. 6. 6. The American College of Cardiology encourages and supports a renewed dedication to the principles of medical ethics, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular specialists are encouraged to participate in the promulgation of medical ethics by teaching and by example, individually and with others.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025456927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025456927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90448-X

DO - 10.1016/0735-1097(90)90448-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 2358584

AN - SCOPUS:0025456927

VL - 16

SP - 11

EP - 16

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 1

ER -