Therapeutic V. Gray's Case

Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US, right behind heart disease and cancer. More than 200,000 people die annually as a result of diagnostic mistakes and negligence by healthcare professionals (Washingtonpost, 2016). In the healthcare industry, even the smallest mistakes and oversight could lead to severe consequences for both the patient and professionals. A healthcare professional would be held liable for any discrepancies that causes harm. The following case will analyze the ethical issue and negligence that lead to the death of an elderly woman.

The patient was initially admitted due to terminal cancer, his family wanted him to have a procedure, but he elected not to do so due to the risk of being in his mid-eighties. Instead, he remained in the hospital for comfort measures because the pain was unbearable without medication. His son did not accept the fact that his father was dying and this created family arguments about the care of the patient because the family did not believe the patient knew what he was doing by declining treatment.

M was taking a look at his leg that was injured but seemed to be healing. All was thought to be well until one office visit the doctor went across the hall to check on another patient who seemed to have an infected leg. The doctor left the door open where confidentiality here was obviously not being taking into consideration for the patient he was seeing as well as others who were able to hear them. Since the door was open, his parents noticed that he did not change his gloves while entering that other room and came back to check on their son with no gloves on. Dr. M was concerned about Jacobs leg and told him to come back the following week while treating it with antibiotics. The following week he comes back only to see that he has developed osteomyelitis. This was the same infection that the other patient developed while under the care of his supervision. Jacobs delay in his recover cost him the opportunity to play football and a college scholarship. Jacobs’s parents then resorted to suing Dr. M because of his negligence and lack of medical

Especially since she was just trying to know that her husband would not be hurt by mowing the lawn. Based on what I have learned thus far in the class, I know that no matter how ridiculous the concern may sound I need to respect the patient and allow them to voice their concern. I would have listen to the wife of the patient and would have reassured her that while I know that she is worried about her husband he should be okay to mow the lawn and then I would have ended the conversation by letting the patient’s wife know that if she or her husband have any other worries or questions that they could contact me. The ethical lesson that is to be learned from Dr. McKee’s unethical error is that patients and their family members need to be treated with dignity because they are trusting the physician with their life and that should not be taken for granted.

The Dred Scott Decision was a famous Supreme Court case, deciding over the decision of slavery was legal in the newly discovered territory. It debated over the decision of whether it was legal for slaveholders to take their property into the newly formed territory or whether their property should be freed in this process. The ruling concluded in 1857 and affirmed that slaveholders should have the right to take their slaves to the west . The decision took three attempts to finally reach a conclusion about whether an African American living in recently developed land should be considered free or not. Below I will discuss the life of Dred Scott, the Scott v. Emerson Case, the Scott v. Sandford Case, the eradicating of slavery, and the path to black citizenship in the proceeding decades.

Currently, most people generally accept a doctor’s word as truth and do not question him or her. When it comes to the medical field, patients can often feel overwhelmed by all the confusing medical terms being thrown at them, so they tend to sit back and do as the doctor says. Healthcare professionals sometimes take advantage of this fact and withhold important information from their patients. For instance, a study conducted by Lisa Lezzoni, MD, and her peers states that more than half of physicians lied to their patients about their diagnosis to put a more positive spin on it (Lezzoni, Rao, DesRoches, Vogeli, and Campbell). Healthcare professionals should disclose to the patient any information pertaining to the patient.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States of America. With this title they have the final say about the decisions for the country. However the Supreme Court can make mistakes and have so before. The case considered the worst Supreme Court decision among many scholars is the Dred Scott V. Sanford case from the pre-civil war era. In which time slavery was a very hot topic between the states. In this case it was determined that a slave was not only not a citizen of the United States but also property (our documents). This court ruling made useless of the Missouri compromise of 1850 which made states above the 36°30’ line Free states and all below the line slaves states (History). This decision was eventually overturned by the Civil War amendments the 13th and 14th which stated that slavery is illegal in all states not only ones in rebellion and that all people born in the united states are citizens including people of color (our documents).

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

On 05/08/16 at 2:47pm, I was dispatched to 5064 Blue Meadow Court, on an injury-possible dangerous or vicious dog, owner known, animal confined. I arrived at the house and spoke to victim Xavier Holston-Sims. Mr. Holston-Sims stated that he was riding his bike from the corner store on Cleveland Ave, when a dog came out and bite him on his left leg. I took a victim statement from Mr. Holston-Sims stating those facts. I then want to 4975 Cleveland Ave and spoke to dog owner Lisha Entingh. Ms. Entingh stated that she was not outside when the incident happen, but that her friend was walking the dog on a leash in her yard when the dog pulled away and bite the victim. Ms. Entingh house is adjutant to a corner store and her side fence door was

Cpl. Jeffrey Johnston Hellertown Police Dept. 685 Main St. Hellertown, Pa. 18055 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Johnston, provided the following information:

To protect our citizen under the 14th Amendment with “without due process” and “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, as well as the 6th Amendment, which the defendant in the case will have a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The courts need to properly select its jury that is racially diverse. So how the court protect the people and select a fair and impartial jury?

In Ohio, year 1957 a minor incident turned to be the headlines of Ohio news. My client, Ms.Mapp has been put under trial because of possessing obscene material but those materials were obtained through illegal doing. Officers had thought that a bombing suspect was in her house. They had asked to come in but Mapp had not admitted them to enter without a warrant. The officers had come by her house three hours later with a paper that they claimed to be a warrant. That paper was then snatched by Mapp and used later on in court. The officers then handcuffed Mapp and proceeded in her house with a fake warrant and continued a search and seizure in her house for the refugee but was not found but in their investigation.They stumbled upon obscene materials which she is guilty of as of now. She shouldn’t be convicted of her charges because there was illegal evidence found without a warrant. She should be free of her charges because putting her on trial will show the Fourth amendment no true purpose for the

Negligence is a potential ramification Dr. Smith is liable for when cancelling the MRI of the brain alert. In order to claim that Dr. Smith was negligent, the patient needs to establish that duty of care was owed to the patient, the standard of care was breached, and as a result of breached standard of medical care, the patient was injured (Fearnley, Bell, & Bodenham, 2012). The case study did not indicate whether a CT scan of the brain was ordered the day prior. If a CT scan of the brain was ordered, Grewal, Austin, Kapral, Hung, and Atzema (2015) state

His noble attempt of the past tarnished his career and ever since has only taken on four cases in a span of three years — losing them all. Nonetheless, a former friend and teacher, Mickey, throws him some sympathy and offers him a medical malpractice case that could earn him a great sum of money. The case involves a young

I reviewed the article “Perceptual error and the culture of open disclosure in Australian radiology”. This article gives a slightly different view with regard to the use of second opinions for reducing medical errors. In Australia they have what is called open disclosure in which patient undergoing diagnostic procedures have all of the films made available to them. The thought of this being that the films can then be carried with the patient to other practitioners who have the ability to review the films and they do not need to rely on the initial read of the radiologist. This is in essence is a second opinion and defecto.