The Court Of Session On The Ground Of Dr Mclellan

The case being discussed is Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89. The applicant for this case is the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service. The first respondent is Q, a 12-year-old girl who is nine weeks pregnant. Q was referred to the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service after visiting a general practitioner to terminate her pregnancy. The Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, the applicant for this case, then applied to the court in the parens patriae jurisdiction for authorisation to terminate Q’s pregnancy. The parens patriae jurisidiction refers to the power of the court to impose a decision about a child on the basis it is for the child’s best interest. The second respondent is Q’s Father and the third respondent is Q’s Mother. The amicus curiae Ms

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

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 many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

In the 25th week of her pregnancy, the mother was advised by the nurse to remain on bed rest to avoid further complications and potentially hurting her unborn baby. The mother continued to work from the hospital placing additional stress on the baby despite the nurse’s appeal that such stress can cause the baby harm. Attempts to stop premature delivery were made but failed, the mother asked the medical team not to take any extraordinary measure to save the baby. The premature baby lived but the mother showed little interest in his health and wellness. The nurse tried to the best of her ability to spark

The case study of Crowe v. Provost, 374 S. W. 2d. 645 (Tenn. 1963), was a highly-anticipated court case for the 1960’s. The following list pertaining to the example of what went wrong and by whom. The first patient appointment opens a file with the patient’s basic information and any allergies including medication(s). This would typically be done with the receptionist. If this was not the doctor’s first time seeing this patient, then the physician should have checked the chart to see if there were any allergies to anything including medication, such as, Penicillin and Cosa-Terrabon. Referring to the Crowe vs. Provost, the child was then rushed back into the doctor’s office with worsening symptoms, the nurse should have listened to the mother. The nurse, could have instructed the mother to take the worsening child to the nearest Emergency Department. The nurse advising the doctor, “That she thought the child was about the same as when the physician saw him earlier in the day” (Flight, M., 2011, page 5-6) was not a good idea. The doctor could have been brought in for an examination of the ailing patient. The receptionist returning from her lunch should not have been a signal for the nurse to leave for any reason with the patient getting worse. Again, the patient and mother should have been instructed to go to the nearest emergency room. The receptionist should not have been left alone with an ailing patient. Mistakenly, the receptionist calling the doctor first and

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

In 1834, a surgeon Dr. John Emerson joined the US Army and was accompanied by his slave Dred Scott at a number of posts located in Illinois, the Wisconsin Territory, and Missouri. When Emerson died in 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom claiming that because since he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal, he was legally free. Soon the case finally went to the supreme court after being overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave and Roger.B.Taney, the chief of Justice at the time, declared that under the US Constitution terms on possession of property, Dred Scott wasn’t free because since slaves were “property” and a slave being freed after going to a free state would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.The outcome of the Dred Scott case affected the United States stance on slavery. The supreme court's

McCulloch v. Maryland case goes back to the 1800s when the State of Maryland, being unhappy with the rising power of the Bank of the United States, enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The State of Maryland sued James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank of the Baltimore branch, for issuing bank notes without obeying to the state’s law and for failing to pay the taxes to the state. The main issues that were raised during the case were: whether or not the Congress had the power to create a bank under the Constitution and whether or not the State of Maryland had the power to impose taxes on a federal bank which was created with authorized powers under the Constitution. The case was

The case of Elizabeth Bouvia v. Superior Court is a well-known case in the patient’s right to refuse treatment. Elizabeth Bouvia was born with cerebral palsy, which worsened, as she grew older and subsequently caused her to become a quadriplegic. She additionally developed severe degenerative arthritis that caused her to be in continuous unbearable pain. At the age of twenty-eight her condition had worsened to the point that she was said to be bed ridden and completely dependent on others for her activities of daily living. Although she had many physical challenges she was a

They felt that the hospital should be held responsible for employing Dr. Alexander and placing him in the emergency room, when clearly he was not qualified to perform Orthopedic medicine which was needed. Dr. Alexander also didn't seek out other colleagues for their advice or for someone who specialized in this condition. After investigating further the Darling's felt that the hospital had inadequate policy and procedure information in place that the Dr. and other medical staff could have referred to if they had questions or concerns.

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.

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

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.