The Law Of Medical Nefeligence

A health care provider must understand many aspects of statutory duty. Duty is “a legal obligation imposed on one to conform to a recognized standard of care to safe guard the rights of others”. The standard of care is usually related to medical malpractice cases. Standard of care is defined as “the caution and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances or by appropriate authority for such situations”. This is mainly of importance because all physicians are expected to perform within the guidelines of this duty, and this standard or care changes depending on the circumstances. “Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witnesses regarding whether the standard was met”(Showalter, 2014 p 139). Negligence results in the failure to meet this standard of care, and the jury usually decides if the defendant is guilty of committing a negligent act. Causation is an aspect of negligence. The defendant could be held liable for negligence if the act was considered to be foreseeable, and if the injury occurred from a breach of duty.

Two exceptions to confidentiality in healthcare settings would be mental health patients and them presenting a serious threat to self or others. The Privacy Rule permits the care provider to disclose necessary patient information to law enforcement and family members. Another exception to confidentiality in a healthcare setting would

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

A physician who does not provide this to his/her patient may be liable for battery or negligence in the light of the doctrine of informed consent (Thorton 2000). As patients are entitled to this information, physicians possess a duty to disclose regarding risks and hazards, while performing the procedure or treatment as agreed with the patient. If the doctrine of informed consent did not exist, physicians would be able to perform medical treatments, procedures, without a patient’s consent or full knowledge of the perils of healthcare. In addition, healthcare demands trust which is necessary between patients and physicians in order to deliver beneficial health outcomes. If the doctrine of informed consent is not performed between the patient and physician, then trust diminishes resulting in poor health outcomes (Roach 2014). An example of deliberate harm due to uninformed consent exist in the research conducted in the Tuskegee experiment, where treatment was withheld and subjects were not informed of their illness or available treatments (CDC 2013) resulting in poor health and

Causation: As previously discussed, it is going to be difficult to defend against the third requirement for a lack of informed consent claim, that the procedure at issue caused in the claimed injury.

When considering the legalities of this scenario, negligence, vicarious liability, and physician- patient relationship are a few components that affect the outcome of a lawsuit. The amount of legal torts that were violated in this case was enough to cause disputes between patients and healthcare staff. Negligence is a familiar tort that occurs much more than it needs too. Unfortunately in this case, vicarious liability and patient-physician relationship are two considerations that influence this case as well.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

The recent case of Katie Thorpe who is 15, whose mother Alison Thorpe trusts that she should be granted a hysterectomy, as she has severe cerebral palsy and the mental capacity of an eighteen-month-old child. This has stirred the discussion over who should decide the sterilisation of mentally incompetent adults should be. Katie’s mother claims that a hysterectomy is in the best interests of Katie because she merely would not manage to handle the ‘aching, distress and embarrassment’ encompassed in menstruation. There are many cases in relation to this issue, however there is no instruction for when a parent is allowed to make that choice.

The four principles of medical ethics include nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles were created by Beauchamp and James Childress because they felt these four were the building blocks of people’s morality. Nonmaleficence is to do no harm to others. Beneficence is to care or help others. Autonomy is to respect another’s wishes. These four principles relate to issues surrounding physician-assisted death in many ways. To begin, there are seven individual forms of PAD. They are the following; voluntary passive euthanasia, nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, involuntary passive euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician withholds treatment or surgery and the result is the patient’s death. An example of passive euthanasia is a cancer patient refusing treatment and the physician agrees with their decision, therefore the patient dies from the lack of intervention to treat their illness. Active euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician has a direct contact with the patient’s death due to the physician’s act of doing something to the patient in order for them to die. An example of active euthanasia is an injection of potassium chloride. Voluntary is when the patient is requesting assistance to die. Nonvoluntary is when the patient is not requesting assistance and their wishes are unknown

It is important that we act in a way that is ethical, legal, and commendable. Medical professionals struggle with healthcare dilemmas that are not experienced by the general public. Medical-ethical decisions have become increasingly complicated with the advancement of medical science and technology. (Fremgen) Just like the government has laws for citizens, not having laws in healthcare would allow people to do anything they want. It is important that we study the ethics and laws of healthcare, because if we were put in a situation it is essential that we know the difference between right and wrong. In the article I found, it talks about a nurse who refuses to give CPR to an older woman who collapsed in a senior residence where she works. This article has many more ethical issues than legal issues.

This causation is identified with the ‘but for’ test, in other words, ‘but for the defendant’s breach of duty would the damage or injury have occurred?’ the main case would be Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee, 1968, where the husband of the claimant went to the hospital due to strong stomach pain and vomiting. He was sent home after the Accident and Emergency department refused to examine him. After five hours, he died due to arsenic poisoning. The hospital owed the man duty of care and were also in breach after refusing to examine him. However, they were not liable as even if they had conducted the examinations the man would have died prior the results and treatment. Meaning that he would have died if the breach was or was not present, as their breach did not cause him to die.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

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.

The essay will discuss the ETHICS IN MEDICINE : The Relationship Between Law and Medical Ethics: