It It f 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.
Quickly solving for the correct diagnosis .Every year there are millions of people who receive an incorrect or untimely diagnosis from their physician(s). A prime example of this comes out of the city of Dallas, Texas. On May 8, 2013, Roberto Llanas, Sr. and Cristalh Mendoza took their son, six-year-old Roberto Carlos Llanas, Jr. to the emergency room at Children’s Medical Center after he ran into a pole and fell on concrete, causing blunt force trauma to his back. When he arrived at the emergency room, he was pale, writhing in pain, and complaining of back and abdominal pain.
Did you have any problem with them in the field? No, well there you are! At present you can still walk, but if once the old boy gets you under the knife you 'll be in cripples” (259). The doctors are being compared to “old boys” or basically children because they are not in the right mindset to realize what they are doing is completely wrong and inhumane. This goes to show that the scandalous opportunities brought by
Peer two response 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.
I think he could have relied heavily on non-maleficence in a strict sense of the term that doctor should not do any harm. Also, throughout all four cases I believed that we relied heavily on taking into account how the family would be affected by the decision, which shows a utilitarian perspective. I also, noticed that when it came down to the final decisions autonomy of the patient was not always respected by all three of us, such as the car accident victim. She wanted death, but we all denied her because we were worried about her mental health. Although with autonomy we should have still respected her wishes, if we were solly basing our decision on
Every member of Cannery Row is unable to consider that Doc has any flaws. They consider him a man that can do no wrong and is flawless because of that. He’s the one that “everyone in the Row came to...for medical advice” even though he isn’t even allowed to practice medicine (Steinbeck 93). He was led into the role by the people and just accepted it because he’s that kind of man. He adapted to the role given to him and gave advice to whoever asked for it.
By this time, the patients will have undergone extreme and undignified situations, and their families will have spent thousands of dollars. This isn’t anyone’s fault in particular, he writes, “in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment.” Doctors, he writes, often opt out of this system. Murray volunteers “Charlie,” a renowned orthopedist and his personal mentor, as an example.
Doctors and physicians have more and better knowledge than normal people about human body and they are able to assist their patients while making tough decisions. However, they can not always make the right decision. Doctors can not predict the result of a surgery or a treatment and they do not have enough confidence of the result because sometimes the surgery could go in a way they didn’t expect. Although patients have the right to decide their treatments, doctors and patients should share
In The Adventure of the Speckled Band, Sherlock Holmes came to the conclusion that "doctors make the greatest criminals". For Sherlock's time period he would be very much correct, doctors are masters at knowing things that could potentially harm the human body. The doctor in the story left hardly a trace, and was very deliberate with his decisions. The four reasons reasons for Holmes' conclusion is poison, intelligence, trust and technology.
My story may be unique, but it is in no way uncommon. Far too many women have had their medical conditions dismissed because a man in a white lab coat said she was “fine” or “just depressed”. No one person should EVER have that kind of sway over the way others perceive an individual. Doctors are not gods.
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.
Doctors’ amicable images are in the minds of most people, but William Carlos Williams depicts a bizarre doctor in his short story “The Use of Force”. The doctor is called to Olson’s home to diagnose a girl named Mathilda who is suspected to have diphtheria. Because of her uncooperativeness, the doctor has no other way working but to use force on Mathilda in order to check her throat and to confirm the diagnosis. In consideration of his using of force in this story, the doctor is becoming less dutiful and more hypocritical with the development of the story. What cannot be denied is that the doctor’s using of force is based on his duty.