Process Essay: Does This Make Good Public Policy?

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

“Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.” (Admin) One of the most common type of claims that pharmacies face are negligence claims. Negligence is one of the categories that falls under the area of law called Torts. In the Hundley v Rite Aid case, a tort was filed for injuries that were sustained by Gabrielle Hundley after she took medication from an incorrectly filed prescription. The case involved a jury trial verdict involving Gabrielle Hundley, a minor child, against Howard Jones, the pharmacist, and the Rite

Treatment without consent - Charlotte, the nurse on duty, had forced James into getting the injections therefore causing him emotional distress. Treating a competent patient who has validly refused treatment could constitute an assault or battery. The legal provisions supporting a competent patients’ right to refuse treatment in Australia can be found in both legislation throughout all the States and common law. The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights is also a helpful source of guidance as it reinforces the common law position that is based upon the principle of patient autonomy. The High Court of Australia first articulated the principle or refusal of treatment in Marion’s case, stating that a legally competent person has a right “to choose what occurs with respect to his or her own person.” Under the NSW Health Patient Charter, consent in regard to an operation, procedure or treatment is both a specific legal requirement and an accepted part of good medical practice. Medical practitioners are also expected to clearly explain proposed treatment, and adequately inform their patients on significant risks and alternatives associated with the treatment.Failure to do this could result in legal action for assault and battery against a practitioner who performs the procedure. Charlotte made no effort to explain or gain a consent from James.

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).

In order to claim that a doctor or hospital was negligent in a medical malpractice case, there must be specific requirements present. First off a doctor-patient relationship must have existed (Boeschen, 2014). An individual making the claim must show that there was a physician-patient relationship with the doctor being sued. This means the doctor was hired and agreed to be hired for the medical care provided. If a doctor began seeing you and treating you, it is easy to prove a physician-patient relationship existed. Second the plaintiff must show the doctor was negligent. Regardless of if the patient is unhappy with their treatment or results, does not determine the doctor is liable for medical malpractice. The doctor must have been negligent -- not reasonably skillful and careful -- in a diagnosis or treatment (Boeschen, 2014). To sue for malpractice, you must be able to show that the doctor caused you harm in a way that a competent doctor, under the same circumstances would not have (Boeschen, 2014). In many cases, the doctor's care is not required to be the best possible, but simply "reasonably skillful and careful” (Boeschen, 2014). Whether or not the doctor was reasonably skillful and careful is often up to the medical malpractice claim.

In many ways, the hospital system in America is set up mirroring our government. They are similar in the way that checks and balances have been set in place to ensure the best possible care is delivered to patients. With these checks and balances there are three main bodies; the governing board, medical staff, and executive management (Showalter, 2017). The duties and responsibilities of each body many times is to oversee and continually check the others. A prime example of this system can be seen through the case of Moore v. The Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, which took place in Nevada and was heard before the Supreme Court of the state in 1972 (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972). Specifically, in this case, the duty of the governing board to “exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining medical staff” is questioned in contrast with the right of the physician to have “due process… when disciplinary action is taken” (Showalter, 2017). In hopes of changing a decision by the governing board, and attempting to reverse the decision of a lower court, the appellant, Dr. Moore, brought the case against Carson-Tahoe Hospital (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972).

Any reasonable organization would be able to predict or expect that the ER nurses condition needed to be addressed by the hospital as it would ultimately lead to harmful result if they didn’t act upon the physician’s recommendation and the previous history of errors (Pozgar, 2012). The hospital failed to supervise or establish appropriate policies to provide reasonable accommodations for the pregnant ER nurse. While not directly at fault for the negligence by the nurse under the borrowed servant doctrine the hospital would be liable for the acts of their agents and in the least contributed to the negligence (Pozgar, 2012 and “Comparative and Contributory Negligence”,

I believe that the hospital should take the blame for the damages and suffering that Kelly Niles endured. This decision reflects the quality of care that Niles received while he was at the hospital and also correlates to his physical status. The neurosurgeons stated that his status would have been better if they got to him sooner and were able to treat him in time, but due to the negligence throughout his whole treatment he is left with the ability to only move his eyes and neck. The fact that there was doubt that Kelly would survive the next few days after his surgery supports my decision that what the court ruled was reasonable and appropriate. Kelly “remained in a coma for 46 days before gradually regaining consciousness.” Kelly is totally disabled and his condition can’t ever be improved with medical attention or surgical treatments which furthers my final decision (“Niles v. City of San Rafael,”

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

In cases were no legal cases have bearing on the issue, courts should turn to other disciplines for authority if, and only if, the alternative authority has expertise and knowledge on the issue beyond that of the court. In this case, the court could have looked at an outside discipline, such as a hospital ethics committee, for authority.

Congress has responded to the public outcry for action in the face of unacceptable suicide rates and has passed multiple pieces of legislation aimed at correcting the problem. The 2007 Joshua Omvig Bill directed the VA to develop “data systems to increase understanding of suicide among Veterans and inform both the VA and other suicide prevention programs” (Veterans Affairs, 2012, p. 7). In 2015, President Obama signed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act into Law, requiring the VA to “make it easier for veterans to find mental health resources, do more to recruit and retain professionals” and to increase “accountability for the government programs serving them” (Baker, 2015, para. 2). This recent legislation tends to be

I truly agreed with the judge in his decision against the Catholic hospital. His decision in ruling the Catholic hospital to be in the wrong simply clarifies and justifies the importance and reasons of a hospital, which is to provide medical services to those in need. Just because it was against the Catholic principles in life, they should have still abided by the Principle of Informed Consent. There

If there are an emergency, the physician is obligated to treat the patient, but they are not obligated to treat everyone. If the

This can be read as a key ethical question to many healthcare case studies because of the errors and situations that occur. One of the explanations for this occurrence may be the overwhelming workload, chaotic environment and lack of individual attention prescribed to each patient. These issues can cause a disruption to the ethical principle of Beneficence. The principle of Beneficence calls to action the act of helping others and having compassion for the patients. This principle can be threatened when a doctor or caretaker is overworked and unable to effectively manage the series of patients and work they are assigned to take on. I believe that the admitting doctor did not initially catch the error of not calling for the specific drug need because he was more focused on getting Mr. Londborg stable and on the medication to treat his initial and present condition before worrying about the preventative medication. In addition, the doctor was so focused on helping everyone all at once that he was blind to the small details and loose ends that needed to be taken care

A young guru one said, “Everybody wants to be successful” in life, but the question is how bad you want it. Most Athletes always say they want to be successful, they want to make it, but the truth is they don’t. They make excuses, their tired, or they don’t have someone to take them to practice, or they have no one to train with. Well I can say that the time for that is over. How Bad Do You Want It, is an athletic facility, where young and old athletes can go and train. My gym is the only gym in the city that provides transportation a bus to pick up athletes; its open 24/7 so you can get your work in; a pool for after the workout you can relax your muscles; and most importantly have turf for field work outs.