Negligence: The Procedure Of Negligence

Truly, there has been hesitance with respect to the judiciary to discover specialists blameworthy of medical negligence. This may due to the mindset of doctors should be shielded from being charged under medical malpractice. This was demonstrated in Hatcher v Black, where Lord Denning, who is regarded as a well-kenned adherent of the medical vocation, described negligence as

A doctor may have to operate even in the absence of consent, to save the life of the patient. It is possible that even with such an intervention, the patient may not survive. Assuming that the doctor is competent and has exercised due care and diligence, the doctor cannot be held responsible for a patient's death, as the doctor has acted in good faith and in the best interest of the patient. Maintaining a good Doctor patient relationship often works better than the best informed consent!

Therapeutic privilege is the idea that if the health care provider discloses information to a patient it may harm them more than help them. The concept of therapeutic privilege is tricky because it must be well documented that omitting the information is in the patient’s best interest. Also, in most cases, therapeutic privilege does not completely overrule informed consent. The health care provider must provide any information to the patient that they judge not to cause harm to the patient. For example, they may not disclose the diagnosis immediately but may explain and gain consent for the preferred treatment option.

The issue that this essay will deal with is whether Benedict has a claim in the tort of negligence and is entitled to damages. Negligence provides a remedy for claimants who suffer damage because of a person’s failure to use reasonable care. To succeed in a claim, the claimant must prove three vital elements. The first hurdle to establish is that the defendant owed the claimant a legal duty of care.

In this paper, it will be proven that equipoise, specifically clinical equipoise, is valid through the comparisons of the different types of equipoise and the focus on trust relationships. However, it will be made evident that clinical equipoise fails to acknowledge the patient’s autonomy because of the high focus on the medical research aspect. For research to be valid, it must consider beneficence. Brody and Miller believe that researchers must respect autonomy for the research to be ethical. This is because the patient does not receive any benefits from participating in the trial, which is known as therapeutic misconception (Miller and Brody, 2003, 100).

The principles of medical ethics are as follows: autonomy, beneficence, confidentiality, non-maleficence, equality, and fairness (Missinglink, n.d.). Autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence are the focus of this case study investigation. Autonomy is the right of competent adults to make informed decisions about their medical treatments. Patients have the right to choose or refuse medical treatments and must provide consent for the treatments performed. Physicians are to respect the patient’s desires and respect their decisions (MissingLink, n.d.).

It is a situation where an individual intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another person through, extreme or outrageous behavior or action. To prove an intentional affliction of emotional distress four elements must be present such as, there must be a reckless on intentional act, the act must be extreme and outrageous, the act must be the cause of the emotional stress to the patient and finally there must be a severe emotional distress to the patient. When a nurse intentionally behaves in a harsh way to a patient either physically or verbally it can cause emotional stress to the patient and relatives. CLIENT ABANDONMENT:

There is a professional standards of practice to guide them in preventing harm. Hospital staff should sensibly ensure that no harm comes to a patient under their care. To withhold necessary treatments from violent patients simply imply that there is an intention to cause harm, perhaps, indirectly (Staunton & Chiarella, 2017). In law, there are three elements that constitute a negligent action - the duty of care is owed to the patient, the duty of care has been breached through inaction, and through this inaction, physical or financial harm has been caused.

Even after adopting all medical procedures as prescribed, a qualified doctor may commit an error. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Supreme Court have held, in several decisions, that a doctor is not liable for negligence or medical deficiency if some wrong is caused in her/ his treatment or in her/ his diagnosis if she/ he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical professionals skilled in that particular art, though the result may be wrong. In various kinds of medical and surgical treatment, the likelihood of an accident leading to death cannot be ruled out. It is implied that a patient willingly takes such a risk as part of the doctor-patient relationship and the attendant

However, in health care, there is an implied duty to help by virtue of the physicians relationship with the patient. This duty is both legally and morally based in that it is reasonable for patients to expect a professional caregiver to act in ways that will promote their health and well-being. On the other hand, there is generally a recognised limit to the level of service and sacrifice owed to a patient by any particular health care professional(10). As with harm, the definition of good is difficult.

The issue is that it is very difficult to assess the overall competence and voluntariness of a patient. CMA mandates that the protection of physicians is a must; and any change in law must legally protect those physicians who choose to participate from criminal, civil, and disciplinary proceedings. No physician should feel compelled to participate, and patients are free to transfer to another hospital if a physician denies a patients

S does raise the possibility of higher risks for not doing the surgery, but not having any other health issues contributes to her decision to not take the risk of having the surgery. The physician is ethical in the decision to decrease Mrs. S anxiety. The physician made the correct call which is backed by the principle that the patient is assumed competent unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Medical professionals may not agree with the patient’s decision but it must be respected to avoid issues. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF.

The Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).

Let’s look at part of the definition of a doctor which is a “healer.” Let us also look at the word, heal. Aren’t their many ways of healing? Doctors want to make sure their patient is comfortable, and they are giving them the best of their ability and knowledge. If a patient suggests and meets all the requirements for Physician Assisted Suicide, I do not see why blame would fall on the doctor.

Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Medical malpractice involves negligent care by a physician. The physician has either done or has not done something (neglect) to make a medical situation worse. A patient may come in with what seems to be something that isn’t serious, but it turns out to be worse because all that could have been done was not done. Medical malpractice in some states results in a cap in damages. The elements of this cause of action according to Zachary Matzo are “duty, breach, causation, and damages” (Matzo, 2015).