It encompasses four components. 1) The duty to act – the patient comes to the dentist with an implied understanding that the dental professional is competent in providing care and in the process, can also attend to any unforeseen circumstances. This demands that a dentist be trained for attending medical emergencies. The moral obligation of the dentist also dictates that if need demands, not only his patients, but any member in an emergency state be attended. This could be a family member, friend or an acquaintance.
Theoretically, Sue can sue Peter under the tort of negligence if she can prove that Peter owed them a duty to care, breach of duty and damage (or loss) resulting from the breach. Additionally, Sue must be suffering losses or damage as a direct consequence of the negligence from Peter. The duty of care refers to the circumstances which are recognised as a legalised obligation to care for the duty one is performing, and failure to adhere to the standards may result in the responsible personnel being liable to pay for the damages due to his/her breach of the duty of care. First existence of the law with regards to “Duty of Care” originated from Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562. In this scenario, we will
Failing to act upon any of this ethical principles as a result it may cause harm to the gal. If proved the nurse can be charge under malpractice breaching of her duty. The nurse can be sued, fined or even get dismissed from her work depending on the severity of the
‘It has been observed that a person “is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them” . Before the twentieth century, there was no duty of care towards people to ensure that they were not injured by one’s carelessness or neglect, unless the object was usually considered dangerous. Only in certain relationships did a Duty of Care exist, for example a Doctor-Patient relationship. A change in the Duty of Care came about in the case of MacPherson v Buick 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).
The doctors failed to use a properly consenting patient, neglected Charlie’s emotional state, and failed to conduct proper research. If Charlie had a caretaker who could give consent on his behalf, similar to a minor, an operation of this sort could be ethical. Moreover, it could be ethical if the doctors’ research and further develop their theory before using a human test subject, and pay close attention to Charlie’s emotional and mental health. However, Charlie’s operation was performed without these precautions and guidelines, and he suffers greatly in the
The dentist is the first point of call for the patient. (Derhalli. M, 2016). The dental hygienist will then follow on from the active periodontal therapy to the supportive periodontal therapy. It will depend on the treatment carried out and the reoccurrence of periodontal disease to the patient.
They must ensure that they are providing adequate services to patients and at the same time ensuring that insurance companies are getting paid (Saint Joseph’s University, 2011, Para 6). Along with that they must secure that they are getting paid. Furthermore, physician moral and ethics are challenged as well; Thus, causing them to rethink how they take on their responsibilities as a medical care provider by trying to keep patients best interest, insurance companies interest and their own interests. This conflict with trying to meet the needs of several different stakeholders causes strain on the physician because they must walk fine line to please each. While trying to please a specific stakeholder another holder could be compromised.
Gress’s position is not morally legitimate, and the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and autonomy render it morally wrong. Paternalism is strongly present in this situation: the patients were not asked whether or not they would like to be informed of the new information that their doctor acquired. Furthermore, Dr. Gress stated that he had “an obligation not to notify them” (Munson 328); however, doctors have a duty to tell even the unfortunate truths to their patients. What Dr. Gress decided was, “on the basis of his own values, that he knows what is best for another person” (Week 2 Ppt Slide 2). Also, he was denying the patients’ autonomy.
Ethical dilemmas may arise for patients, family members and healthcare providers alike. There are times when the ethics committee should be consulted, such as when there is a perceived ethical problem involving the care of a patient or health care providers have not been able to establish a solution that is agreed upon by the patient/ family and the provider caring for the patient. In the case of an ill family member that is in the hospital and the healthcare team is turning to the family to make medical decisions on the patient’s behalf. The family doesn't know how to decide what to do and could use some
When healthcare professionals provide prescriptions to family members this can be seen an unethical in regard to this principle. Because these practitioners do not typically provide the proper paper work after prescribing family members a medication, this can be seen as inappropriate. The principles of equality and need play into this situation. It is unequal treatment when it comes to differentiating the patient from the family member when prescribing treatment. The practitioner may give the family member a higher maintenance remedy that has a higher effectiveness than the remedies typically given in order to assure a recovery.