Study on Mental Retardation

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

This research paper is being submitted on December 8, 2011, for Mara Pehkonen’s M230 Medical Law and Ethics Course.

In this assignment you will practice what you have learned in chapters 5 and 7 in the Medical Law and Ethics textbook:

Consent should be obtained before carrying out any form of care or activity with any individual; if consent cannot be obtained then any form of care etc should not be carried out. If consent cannot be readily established and patient presents in an emergency situation, is unconscious, mentally incapable, and with no family available, and no advanced directive in place, it is considered reasonable to treat the patient. It is assumed that under these conditions, the patient would consent to treat. If there is a language barrier, and the patient is otherwise capable of giving consent, a reasonable effort must be made to find an interpreter, which includes using the ones through the phone companies. If the patient's life is in danger, and there is nobody who can communicate with them, then with careful documentation, treatment can be delivered.

3. There will be events when the essential advisor will be debilitated, out of town, or generally occupied to give emergency service Another person will rely on upon the outline to make clinical decisions. Satisfactory records can guarantee suitable mediation and progression of consideration as coordinated by the ACA Code of Ethics.

a) Select three of the patients’ right below a. Rights to choose a GP b. Rights to hospital treatment c. Rights to refuse treatment d. Rights to opt out of summary care recordsExamine their meaning as applicable to the NHS Constitution or alternative national guidelines………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 3 there is inconsistent application of the legal rules to determine the liability of the medical professional. Therefore, as previously discussed solicitors are usually hesitant to pursue clinical negligence claims by the means of SFA. With SFA being the only means for claimants to afford to pursue clinical negligence claims the removal of civil legal aid for clinical negligence claims has meant that many claimants are unable to access the necessary legal representation and in turn access courts for their civil rights to be determined. Consequently, many claimants are not compensated for medical injuries inflicted due to the negligence of the medical professional, thus the current system is failing to meet its primary aim. More importantly, the practical difficulties in accessing and in turn using the civil justice system for clinical negligence claims has meant that the Scottish Government is failing to meet its obligation under Article 6 and 8 of the

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

This consent has to be signed by the patient , the guardian or patient 's power of attorney . Severe reactions to the procedure leading to cardiopulmonary arrest / death are beyond the health care team 's capacity . As long as there were no mistakes when the procedure was done there will be no repercussions . Emergency apparatus and pharmaceuticals are available for any emergencies that may arise during the after the procedure

Free and informed consent is one of the pillars of the right to health and to legal capacity. For people with disabilities, this principle is often violated and undermined by paternalistic attitudes and actions. So all health professional working with disability take extra care for paternalistic acts

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

The public backlash from the exposé in the Metro article (Coney & Bunkle, 1987) led to the formation of the Cartwright Inquiry headed by Judge Sylvia Cartwright (The Committee of the Inquiry, 1988). One of the most important lessons learned from the report of the Cartwright Inquiry is the importance of the right to give informed consent.This is one of ten rights forming the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights Regulation 1996 under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 as recommended by the Cartwright Inquiry (The Committee of the Inquiry, 1988).

Within healthcare, practitioners often have to make difficult decisions regarding the care of their patients. This could be to do with giving or withdrawing treatment, or as simple as sharing risk information (Glover, 1997). Ultimately, the practitioner must be able to rationalise any decision they have made (Morrison, 2009). With this in mind, the following assignment will draw upon an ethical dilemma and explore how theoretical perspectives can be utilised within the decision making process. Therefore it will also be pertinent to draw upon the law, and how this influences actions within health care. To facilitate this discussion, I will identify a scenario from practice that

A Do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a legal document written by a licensed physician, which is developed in consultation with the patient, surrogate decision maker, and attending physician. This document indicates whether the patient will receive resuscitative care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or advanced medical directives, in the setting of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. A DNR can also be referred as a no code when identifying a patient’s resuscitation status. If a patient has an existing DNR it allows the resuscitation team, taking care of the patient, to either withhold or stop any resuscitation measures, and therefore respect the patient’s wishes. Historically, DNR orders did not become active in the care of patients until 1974, when it was identified that patients who received CPR, and survived, had significant morbidities (Braddock & Derbenwick-Clark, 2014). Braddock and Derbenwick-Clark further noted, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended that physicians, in consultation with the patient, family, and or surrogate, place on the patients chart when CPR was not indicated. This documentation is now what we refer to as the DNR order and has become the standard to allow autonomous respect for patients, and their families, to make informed medical decisions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the legal aspects, ethical issues, and the application surrounding the DNR order.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.