Exact(27)
They argue that this doctrine also applies to confidential informants.
To Dahl, Farmer, and Kim, it seemed clear that this doctrine applied to health care, too.
Legal scholars say that this doctrine rests on the "right privilege distinction".
History, however, has proved that this doctrine, too, is mostly wrong.
2 For the reasons that follow we conclude that this doctrine can no longer be accepted.
The entire weight of biological research in the 20th century shows that this doctrine, as stated by Lysenko, have proved it, false.
Similar(33)
I have located dozens of sources that discuss this doctrine but none that discuss a duty to mitigate or to exhaust all remedies.
Many states have broad regulations that extend this doctrine to different types of healthcare professionals, such as dentists and physical therapists, and digital health companies that seek to provide access to medical or other healthcare services must structure their businesses accordingly.
From that period this doctrine has been the established law of England, intended as a perpetual security against the oppression of the subject from any of those causes.
And yet the Saudi regime has invested tens of billions of dollars funding Wahhabi charities, mosques and schools that promote this doctrine across the Middle East and beyond.
They say that under this doctrine, British courts should not pass judgment on acts where British officials acted with foreign agents abroad.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com