Riser V. American Medical Int L, Inc. Case Study

The case, R. v. Morgentaler, was a case in which three doctors, including Dr. Morgentaler set up a clinic where they performed abortions for women who did not have the approval from a therapeutic abortion committee of an approved hospital. Abortions done without this approval were considered illegal. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated section 7 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Facts: This case concerns a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") against petitioner Thompson Medical Company under Secs.

It frustrates me what Dr. Anna Pou had to go through with the lawsuits of the Memorial Medical Center incident. As Healthcare professionals, being sued for making the rightful decision for the patient and the hospital is unjust. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Hospital’s should not be so quick to make such an important decision of pressing charges to their faculty; more trust should be placed in them. In addition, she made it clear her intentions were just to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’ on national television. While her actions might not be seen as the best decision, she made one and did her best to make the rightful one under such poor circumstances that were out of her control.

The hillside strangler killings involved the suspects of Kenneth bianchi and Angelo Bono. It can be questioned if Kenneth actually committed the murders, it may have been Angelo committing the killing and Kenneth just aiding him in the process. During trail Kenneth claimed to have dissociative identity disorder, an illness where there are multiple personalities inside your brain and your primary personality has no idea that they are existent. Kenneth was found to not have this illness after examination but was the examination correct with its findings. Kenneth claimed to have been lying about having the illness after

After reading this case I was terribly shocked about the fact that something like this could happen in our medical history. I couldn’t believe how a patient could be neglected so much. Based on the material that we have learned the lack of ethical theory of deontology in Dr. Evan was disturbing. As a doctor Dr. Evan’s role is to care for patients, keep them away from harm and prolong their life. Though in the trial he stated as if he didn’t care. Due to medical professionals’ ignorance and medical error, Tomcik lost her right breast, because her cancer grew over time and nothing was done to prevent it. Second action was done wrong by the nurse who couldn’t complete the examination since she didn’t have the required measuring device. A nurse whose job is to take care of patients should have shown more effort and talked to the authorities to get the right tools. A lump has to be taken very seriously if it’s felted anywhere in body special breasts. The morals, ethical values, and characteristics are lost in these kind of health professional health providers. The caregivers lacked commitment, compassion, conscientiousness, fairness and honesty, and if they had taken their jobs seriously probably Tomcik wouldn’t have suffered as much. Trial began on July 22, 1991 and the decision was made on October 7, 1991. Tomcik’s total damage came out to be $85,000 according to the text. The defendants were proven wrong and they were charged. The court did the right thing, but I think a stricter action should have been taken against the defendants. The court itself was appalled, because this scenario was a contradiction towards them. Everyone has the right to have proper medical care, being a regular citizen or a prisoner justice has to be given to both. In this case it wasn’t, Tomcik didn’t receive proper care which resulted in the consequences stated. A doctor has to be alert and careful of what they are writing down in their reports, the confusion between wrists and breast, this

Ethics of healthcare depends on 4 moral standards and how they are utilised; autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Autonomy, which means self-governance, is the rule for regarding the privileges of a person to settle on a choice for them self, and respecting that decision. In healthcare this implies regarding a patient's choice on treatments, regardless of the possibility that it could bring about damage or demise to themselves. Autonomy is about self-rule, control free, without impact or influence from any other person, and is tied in with making an educated and un-forced choice about their care and medicines, based from their qualities and inclinations.

“Medical malpractice claims and lawsuits deal with Improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional. Negligence is the predominant theory of liability concerning allegations of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of Tort Law. Since the 1970s, medical malpractice has been a controversial social issue. Physicians have complained about the large number of malpractice suits and have urged legal reforms to curb large damage awards, whereas tort attorneys have argued that negligence suits are an effective way of compensating victims of negligence and of policing the medical profession. A person who alleges negligent medical malpractice must

However, in the case that a malpractice suit goes to court, victims can only receive compensation from the healthcare professional’s liability insurance if and only if some form of actual medical error was made and if said error has been documented or is physically provable in some way, which can be extremely difficult and perhaps even impossible under certain

The doctor’s diagnosis of Robson says that she has an inoperable tumor in her abdomen that will eventually spread to her liver and metastasize, and eventually killing her. The prognosis was that Robson was to undergo many rounds of chemotherapy to try to prevent the spreading of the disease. Robson later finds out about the baffling misdiagnosis of her doctors. She discovers the tumor was not inoperable, not going to be cured by chemotherapy, and not going to metastasize in her liver. Robson then devises a list of legally worded reasons as to why her diagnosis was incorrect. Robson had the legal power and knowledge to sue the doctors for malpractice and make the doctors pay for the damage they had already done to her such as causing her to lose her hair and to be in physical pain every day from the chemotherapy of which they should not have administered. However, Robson chose not to sue simply and figured the best payback was to show the “world famous doctors” that she was living and healthy without their treatment even though they still claimed they were correct in the first place. What made Robson upset the most was the personal care she received in the doctor’s office from not only the doctors, but secretary as well. The image of the traditional doctor’s office comes back into play, but only this time do the doctors not seem

Some of the ways people get mistreated is things like misdiagnosis, unnecessary surgeries, premature discharge, not ordering the correct tests or not acting upon tests presented, not following up, wrong dosage or medication, leaving things inside the body after surgery, incorrect care in hospitals resulting in bedsores, persistent pain, or pressure ulcers (medicalnewstoday.com). Any of these or more can cause someone to want compensation, however some people don’t gain the money they deserve thanks to the fact that they either don’t have the money to go to court, wait too long, or don’t realize till it’s too late and the statute of limitations is up. Other times when they are brave enough making it to court they need a testimony from a medical personnel, however, they can’t find someone to testify (abpla.org). Usually most people don’t end up making it to court on the grounds that lawyers are expensive and the legal system can take a while, on the other hand, when a malpractice lawsuit is awarded there’s a great deal of money that the hospital’s insurance or the doctor’s insurance has to pay, the payment could be anywhere from hundreds to millions of

The Due to the many medical dysfunctions that happened while Dr. Moe Mathis was in charge, this physician faces a major accusation of medical malpractice. However, when the physician saw the possible mistake he did in identifying Mr. Swensen’s medical condition, he decided to do justice by himself and falsify the medical reports for prostate cancer by doing a second cross-check of the prostate. But, what he did was use the prostate of another patient who indeed had prostate cancer at a similar stage as the initial diagnoses of Howard Swenson. This constitutes Fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, which is a major offence and moreover committed by a trusted, and respected medical professional. Additionally, by removing the prostate of a dead patient to use it to change Mr. Swenson’s medical reports, Moe violated a human corpse, and this constitutes desecration of a human body. In addition to this, to confirm his hypothesis that Mr. Swensen died of an insulin shock Dr. Mathis retrieved vitreous humor (serum) from the eyes of the dead patient’s corpse, without the consent of his family, and next of kin. This constitutes another case of desecration of a human body. The greatest accusation that Dr. Mathis faced was that of first-degree murder for the death of Dr. Ray Mosdell. Since, Dr Mosdell helped Mathis cover-up the mistake made in

Charlie Gordon is a none smart, caring person, living in New York. He has a desirer to be smart and fit in with the world around him. He is 37 years old, with an IQ of 68. Two doctors get him though a surgery to make him smart. They acted un-ethically toward Charlie while going though this preacher. To be ethic is to know, and use your virtues.

As you know I have been trying to meet with you to discuss your case with you since January of this year. Specifically, you had appointments scheduled for January 20, 2017, January 24, 2017, February 9, 2017, February 24, 2017 and, March 21, 2017. You failed to keep any of these appointments. The reason I wanted to meet with you was to explain why I was not interested in pursuing this case. I wanted to give you the respect of a face to face explanation of the issues I found in your medical records, which I believe will make it impossible to recover substantial compensation in this matter.

Thank you for your follow-up related to this Fast Appeal for Mrs. Letha Washington. You have been very instrumental in ensuring that Mrs. Washington got the necessary medical referrals while here in Houston, TX and we truly thank you for all you have done in that area.

Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people? Utilitarianisms would answer the question in the affirmative and change the track so only one person has to suffer. However, we have to question if the Utilitarianism is applicable to such ethical questions (Smart & Williams, 1973). This essay will outline several strength and weaknesses of the Utilitarianism devised by Jeremy Bentham. Firstly, the Utilitarianism will be outlined, secondly some strength and weaknesses are explained by employing examples, and thirdly several solution approaches for dilemmas Bentham’s Utilitarianism is facing will be sketched.