<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>00850nam a2200193   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">374954</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">374954</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20120816u           y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">por</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Risco e neglig&#xEA;ncia na pr&#xE1;tica cl&#xED;nica</subfield>
    <subfield code="f">Helena Moniz</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Pretende-se com este texto abrir o debate sobre a vantagem da exist&#xEA;ncia do art.&#xBA; 150, n.&#xBA; 1 do C&#xF3;digo Penal Portugu&#xEA;s, onde se afasta expressamente a tipicidade de condutas m&#xE9;dicas realizadas de acordo com as "leges artis".</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">Lisboa</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">Abril-Junho 2012</subfield>
    <subfield code="v">Ano 33, n.&#xBA; 130</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Revista do Minist&#xE9;rio P&#xFA;blico</subfield>
    <subfield code="x">0870-6107</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p. 81-100</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">C&#xD3;DIGO PENAL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">RESPONSABILIDADE M&#xC9;DICA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">BEM JUR&#xCD;DICO</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">MONIZ</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Helena</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">PJ_32724_000000000000000</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2022-06-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">402735</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">PJ</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">PJ</subfield>
    <subfield code="k">PJ32724</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2022-06-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
