The Hill v. Ohio County involves a wrongful death case in which the hospital refused to admit Juanita Monroe. She thought she was in labor. As a result, she delivered her child at home without medical attention and died shortly after giving birth. The plaintiff was Lorene Hill, administer of Monroe’s estate, against Ohio Country Hospital. The question arises whether there was a breach of duty by the hospital in accordance to the institution’s admission policy. The staff nurse followed all protocols defined by the hospital. When Monroe arrived at the hospital there was no apparent emergency. Moreover, the nurse went above and beyond to provide for her, she gave Monroe information where to get OB services and even offered an ambulance
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Name: Terry v. Ohio 392 US1 Supreme Court 1968 Facts: The incident occurred on October 31st 1963 at approximately 2:30pm in the afternoon. The police officer who was dressed in plain clothes was attracted by Terry and Chilton who were casing a store. With 30 years of prior experience in the area. The officer knew casing when he saw it. He had been assigned to that area specifically in search for shoplifters and pick pockets.
Bearman v. Notre Dame 453 N.E. 2d 1196 (Ind Ct App 1983) Facts: The plaintiff Christenna Bearman and her husband sued the University of Notre Dame for the damages that resulted from an injury occurring on October 27th, 1979. Mrs. Bearman’s leg was broken when an intoxicated person after walking away from fighting with another intoxicated man fell into her from behind, knocking her down as she was returning to her car after a Notre Dame football game. During the incident there was no security or ushers in the area. Mrs. Bareman argued that she was a business invitee and there was a sense of duty of care that the university should have had for her.
Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.
1. Name and Citation of the Case: Melfi v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 64 A.D.3d 26, 29, 877 N.Y.S.2d 300 (1st Dept. 2009) 2. Nature of the Case: This case analyzed the constitutional right of hospitals handling the deceased without consent or without notification to the family.
The conduct of the defendant’s in the 1971 Washington Court of appeals case, State v. Williams, while neither advisable nor necessarily admirable, was justified given their valid concerns about losing possibly losing custody of their son if they sought medical help due to their Native American heritage. Walter Williams and Bernice Williams made the fateful decision to not take their 17-month old son, who was thought to only have minor tooth-ache, to the hospital due to concerns that such hospital visit would result in them losing custody of their son. Unfortunately, for the co-defendants, their son’s illness was much more severe than initially thought and their decision not to seek care resulted in both the son’s death and a manslaughter conviction
1. Reasonable suspicion was defined as less than probable cause (having a reason to search a suspect's person or property) but more than a hunch (an idea or guess of a suspect’s criminal activity) as described in the Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio, 1968). In this case and at this point in the investigation, reasonable suspicion (Specific and factual evidence directed towards a search and/or arrest) exists purely because Mr. Wilkens was found driving down the road of the scene right after the murder at 1 hour after midnight. Because he was near the scene of the crime, I would be legally allowed to stop, frisk and question Mr. Wilkens about why he was there, what he was doing at one in the morning and if he was aware of what
As you may heard during the opening statement, Milan fell down of the clock tower, slowly she was passing through the tunnel of her death. A witness claims that Chris Archer is responsible for her death. Milan and Pat Smith were best friends since elementary, precisely in third grade. They both suffer bullying at a young age. He states that kids used to call her mean names because she was the newbie.
In the case of Henrietta Lacks and her family, the mistreatment of doctors and lack of informed consent defined nearly 60 years of the family’s history. Henrietta Lacks and her children had little to no information about serious medical procedures and the use of Henrietta’s cells in research. Henrietta’s cells launched a multibillion-dollar industry without her consent and doctors even took advantage of her children’s lack of education to continue their research without questions: “[Doctor] did not explain why he was having someone draw blood from Deborah… he wrote a phone number and told her to use it for making more appointments to give more blood” (188). Deborah did not have the knowledge to understand the demands or requests the doctors made of her, and the doctors did not inform her explicitly.
Any injury to a person resulting in death that is inflicted by someone intentionally or due to negligence is a wrongful death. To help the family members left by the decedent, the United States Government has formed a statute according to which the person responsible for someone 's death can be brought in a civil court and made to pay the damages the victim 's family has incurred. To book the culprit, determining the cause of death is important. Thorough investigation is needed to find out if the death is because of a wrong conduct or negligence by someone. If you are living in Florida and have lost a family member, you can file a wrongful death lawsuit against the responsible person for compensation or recovering damages.
Various types of crimes have led many women to death row such as Karla Faye Tucker, since the execution of North Carolina’s own Velma Barfield, who was executed in 1984. Also, Tucker becomes the second woman put to death in the United States since capital punishment was re-introduced in 1976. Fourteen years later, she was condemned to death in Texas, since Chipita Rodriguez was hanged for killing a horse trader in 1863, and Tucker became the first female to be executed in Texas since that time. The Dallas Morning News asserts that “Tucker, 38, was convicted of using a 3-foot-long pickax to hack Jerry Dean to death during a burglary at his Houston apartment in 1983. Also killed was an overnight guest, Deborah Thornton” (Hoppe).
“In the 20 years that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law has been on the books, 1,749 patients have been prescribed lethal medications, and only 64% of them (1,127) used them to die, according to state data. Last year, Oregon doctors prescribed 206 lethal medications, 133 of which were reported used by patients” (Portland Press Herald). This statistic shows that not all patients who are prescribed the drugs, use them to end their life. Gale states, “The three most frequently cites reasons for requesting suicide were: a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, loss of autonomy and loss of dignity.
The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.
n this paper, I will argue that Dr. Ewing Cook’s actions were morally impermissible by showing that most of the reasons he used to justify his actions of hastening the death of Jannie Burgess are what we called the “slippery slope arguments”. First, I will provide a little context of what Dr. Cook had done to patient Jannie Burgess and the reasons he used to justify his actions. Next, I will defend my thesis by presenting some arguments against Dr. Cook’s reasons and actions, which will lead me to conclude that Dr. cook’s action were morally impermissible. Last but not least, I will address some possible objections to my position. First, let’s take a look at what had Dr. Cook done to patient Jannie Burgess and the arguments he used to justify
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.
Expert testimony established that the patient would have survived given proper treatment. Furthermore, the court stated that when the defendant’s negligent action or inaction has terminated a person’s chance of survival, the defendant cannot then raise conjectures of what may have or may not have happened. As such, the court repealed the decision in Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, because of it’s all-or-nothing approach. Furthermore, the State of Ohio has decided to follow the rest of the county with the less harsh standard of the loss-of-chance theory.