Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (13436)	2/27/2006 4:29:52 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541591

But here you seem to say that the hospital has a duty to promote breast feeding: IMO, its quite clear that they have a duty, well-established under common law. We typically think of the term “fiduciary responsibility” or “fiduciary duty” as solely within the concept of economics, but it is in no way limited to that. …. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust, and the word itself originally comes from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia. When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behaviour than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law… In other words, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) does not apply. It is not good enough to say, the principal was informed. There is a higher standard of care. …Relationships which routinely attract a fiduciary duty are: * Trustee/beneficiary: Keech v Sandford[8] * Director/company: Woolworths Ltd v Kelly[9] * Lawyer/client: Sims v Craig Bell & Bond[10] * Partner/partner: Fraser Edmiston Pty Ltd v AGT (Qld) Pty Ltd;[11] Chan v Zacharia[12] * Agent/principle: McKenzie v McDonald[13] * Stockbroker/client: Hodgkinson v Simms[14] * Senior employee/company: Green & Clara Pty Ltd v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd[15] * Doctor/Patient: Breen v Williams[16] * Parent/Child: Paramasivam v Flynn [17] en.wikipedia.org ww

To: mph who wrote (13436)	2/27/2006 4:36:03 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541591

I'm not sure I see your point. I expect hospitals to tell patients what the healthiest options are, and I expect them to tout those healthiest options as, well, the healthiest- thus promoting the healthiest option. For hospitals to encourage the marketing of unhealthy options via their own institution doesn't make much sense to me- especially when the department of public health, acting on the advice of the doctors of the US, is against such marketing. Hospitals don't have a duty to MAKE new mothers breastfeed- but they do have a duty to fully inform them about the benefits of breast feeding versus the detriments of formula. If you looked at the AMA study I posted it is pretty clear that many new mothers are not, in fact, getting the information they need about breast feeding. You seem to see an inconsistency in what I wrote- I'm still not seeing it (except for the irony you missed- if read as irony it fits perfectly with my other post which you have linked.) You may, of course, explain to me further what your point is, if you wish, because at the moment I'm not comprehending it.