Case Involving Mr. Jones At Age 25

The district nursing team were now to be responsible for the wound care of an ulcer on the sole of her right foot on her impending discharge. She had previously attended the practice nurse and a podiatry service based within her local clinic. Due to a change in circumstances, she was now clearly housebound for the near future due to mobility issues. Prior to an arranged visit, the patient had called the nurse to advise her that she was pyrexial and was experiencing a pain in her right foot that was different from her normal neuropathic pain, which was often problematic. She was also finding it difficult to mobilise and was disinclined for diet but was taking oral fluids.

In the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital case, the plaintiff went to Charleston Community Memorial Hospital after breaking his leg. The unqualified physician, Dr. Alexander, incorrectly placed the cast on the plaintiff’s leg. The ill-fitted cast restricted blood circulation and resulted in a significant amount of necrotic tissue. Ultimately, due to negligence of the medical and nursing staff at Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, Darling’s leg was amputated. (Darling, 1965).

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

1. A physician is called to the intensive care unit to provide care for a patient who received second- and third-degree burns over 50 percent of his body due to a chemical fire. The patient is in respiratory distress and is suffering from severe dehydration. The physician provides support for two hours. Later that day the physician returns and provides an additional hour of critical care support to the patient.

Advance Directives by the patient designates no feeding tubes, artificial ventilation, or CPR. Concerns regarding alteration of mental status consequential to his illness provoke the physician to seek consultation from the designated Power of Attorney. Nursing responsibilities compel the nurse to consider if the proposed actions of Dr. G violate the patient’s rights of self determination and confidentiality and prompt the nurse to advocate for the patient’s desires regarding medical treatment. Health care providers have a responsibility to honor the patient’s autonomy and provide quality medical care (Badger, 2009 p122). Providing artificial nutrition and ventilation transgresses the patient’s directives and is unethical. The physician appears to be asserting a paternalistic approach in deciding what is best for this patient. Should the interventions be temporary and provide resolution of the condition, the physician can defend his actions as being healing and beneficial. However, there is a chance that the interventions may be permanent and futile; avoiding passive euthanasia and terminal dehydration, serving only to prolonging the illness. Violating the patient’s directives of care by performing invasive procedures can lead to legal incriminations of assault and battery.

Rarely any physician intends to harm patients when he or she provides treatment to them. Patients see physicians and specialists in full faith that they will get help with a condition. What complicates the patient-doctor relationship is that the outcome of each patient’s treatment is different because of individual health conditions and the course of treatment chosen by the doctor. Problems arise when a patient is not satisfied with care provided by the doctor or in extreme cases when a patient dies. Since most of the time it is hard to clearly determine whether the outcome was solely a result of the course of treatment chosen by the doctor or whether other factors played a role too, quite often patients take their

Beneficence compounded by nurse-physician communication created ethical problems in this case. Mainly, Joanna’s assessment of Mrs. Kelly being ignored by the resident physician and the nursing supervisor. Joanna worked within the scope and standards of practice, she assessed, evaluated, and monitored her patient’s condition. She then reported her findings to the resident twice, and also sought nursing support from her shift supervisor. After Joanna’s first call to the resident, and her continued concern she needed to advocate in a proactive manner. Continuing her assessment of Mrs. Kelly to include palpation and auscultation could have offered additional clinical information enabling her to articulate the problem to the resident and nursing supervisor.

The medicinal experts on staff for the 12 hours that the patient was in painful distress while she was being drowned by the feeding solution, neglected to perceive that she was in trouble until it was past the point of no return. While this is obviously a blatant case of medicinal negligence, not all medical malpractice cases are quite so obvious, and not every single medical procedure with a troublesome result can be viewed as medical malpractice negligence. The essential prerequisite for medical malpractice is that the doctor or other medical expert has breached the acknowledged standard of care for their specialty in their geographic area, and that the breach caused harm to the patient. Doctors, as human beings, commit errors consistently, yet in the event that their mistake does not bring about injury or harm to the patient, there are no grounds for lawful

Adam got an invitation from his friend to go to a baseball game. Adam is not familiar with the game of baseball and has no knowledge of the game or know what happens at baseball games. Because he immigrated to the United States. His friend purchased some seats just a few rows up from the field, along the first base line. Majority of baseball stadiums have nets hung behind home plate and not along the baselines. While enjoying the entertainment of the game.

The Department of Human Resources received a report on Ms. Sue Salter on 9/17/14 alleging Ms. Salter a paraplegic who is paralyzed on her left side was living in a home with no water, power, and had an inadequate caregiver. During investigation, utilities were reconnected and Hospice service provided. Hospice stated Ms. Salter was losing notable weight and found lying in urine during visits. Due to this, several bedsores increased and the doctor ordered a catheter and low air mattress. Ms. Harville, the caregiver was educated on wound care numerous times and demonstrated a working knowledge but choose not to administer wound care.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

his chronic pain in his back. Nurse J. never questioned the orders for medications or the

Situation: You are working the day shift on the medical-surgical unit in a small district hospital. Your assignment includes an 18-year-old female college student, admitted the previous night. She was caught in a house fire and sustained burns over 30% of her body surface area, with partial-thickness burns on her legs and back.

According to content obtained from (www.uptodate.com) Burns are the leading cause of accidental injury and death in the United States and worldwide [1-5]. Each year approximately one million people in the United States seek medical care for burns, approximately one-third of these in the emergency department [1,4-6]. Although the vast majority of injuries do not reuire hospitalization, severe burns can lead to significant morbidity and death.

As a doctor, to prepare myself to take on this case I would have to process a substantial amount of information and use my best judgment to conceive what the best plan of action regarding this case should be. Reviewing the four key principles in medical ethics: nonmaleficience, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, would prove to be very helpful. After reviewing and consulting with my peers I would most likely conclude that the patient is the one receiving the service and is to be put first above all other factors contributing to the situation.