The conception of the doctor–patient relationship under Australian law has followed British common law tradition whereby the relationship is founded in a contractual exchange. By contrast, this article presents a rationale and framework for an alternative model—a “Trust Model”—for implementation into law to more accurately reflect the contemporary therapeutic dynamic. The framework has four elements: an assumption that professional conflicts with patient safety, motivated by financial or personal interests, should be avoided; an onus on doctors to disclose these conflicts; a (...) proposed mechanism to contend with instances where doctors choose not to disclose; and sanctions for non-compliance with the regime. (shrink)

The essays on obesity in this issue frequently refer to the recent American Medical Association (AMA) declaration of obesity as a disease. In response to these essays, I describe and explore the significance of ‘risk–factor medicalization’ and how negative unintended consequences with this approach to disease modeling are exemplified in many of the essays. I also relate the essays’ content to the issue of physician hubris in the face of their own helplessness in aiding the obese patient.

In this paper I shed light on the connection between respect, trust and patients’ satisfaction with their medical care. Using data collected in interviews with 49 women who had managed, or were in the process of managing, their risk of ovarian cancer using prophylactic surgery or ovarian screening, I examine their reported dissatisfaction with medical encounters. I argue that although many study participants appeared to mistrust their healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) motives or knowledge base, their dissatisfaction arose not from a lack (...) of trust, but from HCPs’ failure to treat them as persons or take their concerns seriously. I conclude by describing how respect, as evidenced by “being taken seriously”, is important for the development of trusting Patient–HCP relationships. (shrink)

Debates about the regulatory requirements surrounding the introduction of nanotechnology products have, at least in Australia, remained largely within disciplinary boundaries and industry and academic circles. This paper argues for a more interdisciplinary and inclusive upstream debate about the introduction of ethical, regulatory and legal frameworks that may avoid the loss of public trust that has characterised the introduction of many new technologies in the past. Insights from risk-perception theory and research are used to introduce the notion of risk as (...) narrative as a framework for action. This paper suggests three main strategies for moving forward; drawing insights from the “trust gap” experiences of other new technologies; the application of the active form of the precautionary principle; and, the creation of nano-futures that meet both community and industry values through effective public engagement. (shrink)