The Plaintiffs ' Medical Doctors

Given the rising amount of people affected with health issues within the community such as headaches, asthma chronic fatigue, cancer, and spontaneous nosebleeds, the Plaintiffs

In doing so, he pays particularly close attention to black patients and their relations with health care policies and practices. Smedly maintains that blacks are not only the victims of, inpatient and outpatient treatment, racial policies, and other services but also the victims of its consequences. He argues that many health care administrators are agents to a system of inequality that support provider and administrator biases, geographical inequalities, and racial stereotypes (Smedly 2012).

When considering the American medical system, it is clear that the policy solutions for disparities occurring outside the clinical encounter

In the early 1960’s privately owned hospitals in North Carolina were allowed to discriminate against race as to whether to admit a patient to the hospital and/or grant privileges to African American doctors or dentists, as long as separate-but-equal facilities were provided. Dr. Simkins, an African American dentist, attempted to admit and treat a patient experiencing an abscessed tooth, ultimately being subjected to denial of privileges.

In the 1960’s, hospitals were based from segregation; such as race, religion, or gender. Some hospitals treated patients that have to do with specific

In regard to the family of Henrietta Lacks suing John Hopkins Hospital, while I sympathize with their viewpoints and claims, I believe their lawsuit is misguided and will not stand in court. John Hopkins Hospital has a dark track record on handling African American patients no questions on that, but unfortunately prior cases with similar issues have resulted in failure. Many of these abuses occurred during the era of segregation and Jim Crow not only in the southern society but within the north as well. That being the situation, wouldn’t it be hypocritical on demanding justice from one establishment while letting the rest of society go? Additionally to that David Lacks had given consent to Dr. Gey and the hospital, no one forced him, and he

One of the points raised in IOM’s article to prove that racism is a prevalent cause of health care disparity is the way the health care system is set-up, meaning at times, some hospitals and clinics can adopt a policy to contain health care cost, but may pose hindrances to minority patients’ capability to access the care.

The underlying issues in both cases are racial discrimination. For Cheryl Boulden in the affirmative action case the issue is being “an African American woman among the good ol’ boys in Indiana.” She was recruited because of race and her permanent handicap was seen as an asset for a diversity program lacking any. Yet these qualities made her a target of racism. Susan Finn’s ethnic discrimination presents a dilemma of how to deal with a contract physician’s abusive behavior “toward Hispanics and female staff as well as patients” (Reeves, 2006, p. 79). While the issues of racial and gender discrimination is not unusual, the failure of these agencies to address multiple complaints is.

It is this author’s belief that no entities should stand in the way of an individual’s right to seek counsel, regardless of outcome. The ramifications of not suing a HMO could demonstrate no evidence to support efforts to amend the current law, and without legal documents demonstrating the consequences related to denial of care, the rights of patients, to ensure a safe and effective health care, according to standards of practice, may be compromised.

In 2006 Brenda Waudby filed a lawsuit along with some of the others victims effected by Dr. Smith’s statements. Louise

Complaint, Exhibit B (Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, Paragraph 2 which provides: “In consideration for the Promissory Note and evidence of the release of your non-competition obligation, we shall pay you no more than One Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($195,000) or some lesser final sum which you negotiated with [the prior medical practice] for the release of your non-competition obligation.”); and Answer, ¶¶11-13 (stating in part that the “Physician Employment Agreement is a document in writing and speaks for itself”). And see Houpe v. City of Statesville, 128 N.C.App. 334, 341, 497 S.E.2d 82, 87 (1998) (“attached exhibits become part of the pleadings”) (citation omitted).

The next principle to discuss is the principle of autonomy. Not only is this one of the core values in the hierarchy model, but also one of the five principles mentioned in ADA’s Code of Ethics. According to the ADA, patient autonomy matters just as much as the dentist’s patterns of practice. However, Dr. Decker should focus on what is going to be best for the patent in long term. In the Dental Ethics at Chairside textbook, the dentist is mentioned to be the expert in dental treatment. The patient has every right to dictate their treatment under the principle of autonomy, but ultimately the patient lacks the knowledge what all entails each dental treatment plan option. This idea is expressed in the Guild Model which idealizes the foundation of placing the decision making in the sole hands of the dentist. In this model, the

Patient’s arguments: The patient argued that he had only consented to the treatment on the basis of the professional advice that he had been given by the defendant, which indicated that the treatment was reasonably necessary. However, this was in fact a misrepresentation because the treatment was unnecessary meaning that valid consent was not obtained leading to assault and battery of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that it couldn’t be definitively stated that the dentist was dishonest or fraudulent as opposed to simply incompetent and as such the tort of trespass could not be made out.

Doctors are healers; they have the ability to cure diseases and save lives. To acquire such ability, one must not only have to go through rigorous trainings, but also have to sacrifice at least a decade and take on an incredible amount of debts. There is a double standard in the world of medicine. Patients are glad and respect their doctors when they are treated; however, the doctors are viewed as evil and incompetent when procedures went unexpected. Patients often fail to realize that doctors are also humans; thus, errors are unavoidable even in medicine. Unsuccessful procedures deliver misfortunes and pains to the patients. In addition, they also bring fear to the doctors knowing that malpractice lawsuits are the ultimate consequences for their mistakes. As reported by the article Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the chances of facing malpractice claims increase dramatically for doctors who practice in high-risk specialties, such as surgery and obstetrics, compared to those that practice low-risk specialties, such as family medicine (Jena, Seabury, Lakdawalla, & Chandra). In comparison to other specialties, becoming a surgeon requires significantly more training, yet the rate of malpractice claims are notably higher. The high risk of getting sued for surgeons seems counterintuitive, which raises an alarming question: What factors contribute to the soaring malpractice lawsuits in surgery?