In regards to case ‘The Court Was Appalled’, I have to agree with the ruling of the court’s decision. The physicians’ obligation to properly examine his patients such as in the case of Tomick’s breast the first time was complete negligence. The physician did not complete a thorough examination, and then the patient had to wait months to be reevaluated again. The Ohio Court of Appeals made the right decision in favoring the patient. If the proper care was given early on the mass size potentially could have been prevented. This patient was not treated with the ethical respectany patient should receive when seeking help/treatment. It is very alarming that a physician whose job is to take care of other humans would disregard giving a proper
In the health care field, the concept of informed consent allows patients to make their own decisions regarding their health care. A patient and physician have a discussion about the details of a medical process. They must discuss risks, alternatives and outcome of treatment. If a patient agrees to the terms of treatment then they are allowing or giving consent to the physician. Patient education and communication are vital during this process. Often doctors will try to act in beneficence but it is critical that they respect a patient’s autonomy. They have a duty to no do harm which can make it difficult if doctors and patients cannot come to an agreement on treatments. If a physician acts without consent then it can result in battery or negligence.
Dr. Gress’s view that the results of a genetic test should be withheld from patients if they are positive is paternalistic, immoral, and does not consider the autonomy of the individual. He holds the position that notifying patients of their genetic status is too harmful and that it is a doctor’s duty to withhold information that could be devastating; however, in doing so, he violates many ethical principles that doctors should exercise. This paper will give an overview on the topic of genetic testing and the ethical and moral problems associated with it, an analysis rejecting Dr. Gress’s view, and a response to an objection to the thesis of which this paper is based on.
“Knock knock.” “Who’s there?” “HIPPA.” “HIPPA who?” “Sorry, I can’t tell you that information…” Sadly, no one has ever been credited for that joke, but that joke, while funny, also has some truth to it. However, HIPAA breaches and other accidents that can occur in radiology, are no laughing matter. Jim Lipcamon of the Diagnostic Imaging branch of Modern Medicine Network, referenced a New York Times article that stated, “it is estimated that medical errors may cause over 250,000 deaths per year”. Lipcamon’s article goes on to state that there are three main causes of medical errors, which are human errors, risky behavior, and reckless behavior. It is this generation of radiographers that needs to be the change. It is this generation’s duty to
Cancer is one of the most frequent diagnostic errors to occur. Here doctors can spend more time with their patients so that they can answer all possible questions and give all needed answers. By doing this, doctors and patients can develop a relationship which will make it easier for patients to share information about their health with their physicians.
Hi Dayne, I don’t agree with the outcome of this case. First of all the doctor treated the patient with the best information he had which was incomplete. Second the patient didn’t come back for a year? This seems inconceivable that somehow now the doctor is being held responsible. There is no way that patient was symptom free for a year if she was literally at a stage of cancer that was incurable. I think this case has very little merit and should have been thrown out. I think this speaks to the “limits of personal responsibility” the doctor treated his patient in good faith and if he had been completely informed of his clients history may have made other decisions. Also I would imagine the client was told to follow up
Dr. McKey started out playing the role of the hotshot doctor. Although there were some small unethical activities going on in his OR, I didn’t notice anything majorly unethical/illegal until Dr. Mckey switch roles and became the patient. There was one unethical action that stood out to me in the beginning. Dr. Mckey wasn’t being a reasonably prudent person when his patient was uncomfortable with the size of the scar on her chest. Instead of mentioning that the scar will fade and shrink, he decided to make a remark about being a playboy bunny and having the scar to prove it. Dr. Mckey was lacking in his beneficence. He should take the time to make his patient feel comfortable and important.
Mr Justice Woolf held that she was not entitled to the declaration she sought because “in order to obtain the relief the plaintiff had to establish… that lack of parental consent would render the doctor’s conduct unlawful” however Woolf decided that the plaintiff did not establish this and a doctor would make an effort to ensure that nothing happened
In such cases the issued verdict would not be so ideal, so that referred to the ideas of experts and expert ideas entered in the verdict. He states that fortunately in the Tehran city the court for Medical and pharmacological issues exists and in developing investigations cases for the Judiciary this problem will be solved in the future (NajafiTavana, 2007).
Negligence is a term of art, but has different meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in master servant relationship. In criminal law, there are channels of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is immaterial; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operating a patient without consent is an example of negligence even without actual damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’. The term negligence defined by Baron Alderson negligence means: “Omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by that consideration which regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable