Quote:
|
1. Are there any international/US laws that regulate medical advice on the internet?
|
Unless someone figures out a way to extend legal jurisdiction past individual political boundaries, I believe there can be no law about this.
Quote:
|
2. If a doctor gives advice to his regular patient on the net or thru email, is it valid?
|
Absolutely.
Quote:
|
3. Can a doctor-patient relation be established without seeing the patient in person?
|
Yes, but why would anyone settle for this?
I'm sure prescriptions could be made without face-to-face contact, but what kind of diagnosis could be made without this? It is clear to me the patient is at great risk in this situation--and the physician can be easily accused of malpractice. Unless the physician is practicing on the internet...
Quote:
|
4. Suppose a medical advice by a homeopath in italy to a patient in US goes wrong (or the patient holds the suggested medicine responsible for any adverse changes that may have occoured after taking homeopathic medicine), then under what legal framework (if there is any) can the person who gave the advice be held accountable?
|
None. Especially if the physician specifies somewhere that the patient engages at his own risk--like Jon Haworth has done on the BB, with his disclaimer.
Quote:
|
5. Since in US the homeopathic medicines are available as 'over the counter drugs' as per FDA rules and u donot need a prescription to get them, Does having a prescription matters at all? Can a person be held responsible for suggesting a homeopathic medicine which does not even require a prescription to get?
|
Yes. Here's how: making the suggestion can be legally interpreted as "practicing medicine". Only MDs are legally allowed to "practice medicine". Homeopaths and other alternative practitioners who terrify the AMA are not. Therefore, one can be charged with practicing medicine without a license. This is a big offense in the US.
However: legal precedent has been set by homeopaths who have fought and beaten this charge. Dana Ullman, for example, was charged with this and defended himself by proving that he was not "practicing medicine", but rather "practicing homeopathy". He carefully pointed out the differences between the two entities, was cleared of any charges, and established a very strong legal precedent in the state of California as a result.
Divina