Legal Issues In Nursing - Essay Example

Introduction Research shows that negligence issues did and still do occur in the nursing profession. Negligence is descried as an action of omission or commission by an individual resulting in negative impacts to another party. In this case the first person owes the affected party duty of care. Further analysis shows that law was put in place in order to deal with such cases of negligence. This paper is therefore dealing with Donoghue v Stevenson case 1932 and Henson v Perth Hospital Management 1939 case. This is in relation to negligence on the part of doctor, student nurse and staff nurse in Perth hospital. This paper also shows what was expected of them. This paper will elaborate on the issues of negligence in relation to the stakeholders involved. In the Donoghue v Stevenson case, this paper will elaborate on how the case changed the law at that time. (Kerridge, 2004) Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 Facts on the case In this case, Donoghue and her friend went to a cafe in Paisley and the friend ordered for ice cream drink, ice and a pear. The owner of the cafe brought the ordered items and poured some ginger beer in the ice cream tumbler. It is recorded that Donoghue drank part of it and the friend decided to add more beer in the tumbler. As her friend was pouring, a decomposing snail popped out. It is recorded that Donoghue had stomach pains that were diagnosed by a doctor as gastroenteritis. She said she suffered emotionally too. She therefore took the case to court against the ginger beer manufacturer. Preliminary law Before the case about Stevenson and Donoghue, the law that related to duty of care was limited only to some few relationships. In this case, for any person to prove legal responsibility in relation to negligence, then a duty of care had to be established first. There had to be proof that the defendant had breached that duty. (Penrose, 2005) The law required that the damage of the plaintiff had to be connected or resulting from the defendant’s breach of duty. The law did not initially allow Donoghue to sue defendant because the two did not have contractual relationship. The manufacturer did not carry out fraudulent misrepresentation and therefore the case could not be considered as negligence. (Penrose, 2005) Outcomes and change of law According to Lord Macmillan, negligence in this case could not only be categorised between two people in contract. He argued that a manufacturer is liable for any damage caused if he or she fails to ensure that the product is good for humans. He argued that this called for the removal of the legal aspect that only contractual parties had the right to sue. This resulted in the change of law to exclude the aspect of only contractual parties suing. This therefore marked the change in the law of negligence. According to Lord Atkin, my neighbour is a person that that can be affected directly or closely by my actions or omission. In this case, it legally means that one has to ensure that he or she avoids omissions or actions that can harm his neighbour. (Penrose, 2005) Relevance of the case Analysis of Donoghue v Stevenson case reveals that it is very important even today. The changes made are especially relevant to day to day life. This is considering the fact that one can actually sue another party for negligence even if he or she is not in a contractual relationship with the party. This law has in itself helped many people to become very responsible in their actions of commission or omission. It is important as it has played a very big role in enhancing safe products and services. (Veatch, 2005) In the healthcare set up, this case is very essential as it has enabled nurses and doctors to be more careful in their line of duty. In this case, they strive to avoid injury or any damage to patients that they handle. This case is very relevant because a patient’s relative can sue a nurse or a doctor for negligence. This case has therefore enhanced professionalism and accountability in the healthcare sector. (Veatch, 2005) Henson v Perth Hospital Management 1939 The case In this case, it is illustrated that the plaintiff went to hospital for treatment of his left ear. This was after having had discomfort in the ear. The plaintiff records that he was examined by the resident doctor in charge of the casualty department. It is recorded that there was a student nurse in the hospital who had eighteen months experience. In these, only three months were spent in the casualty department. The nurse was assisting the doctor in this scenario. (Veatch, 2005) The doctor then ordered the student nurse to give the patient (plaintiff) ear drops. The doctor, in his evidence said that he told the student nurse to get acid carbol drops and glycerine. He never wrote down the prescription. The student understood that the doctor asked her to get acid carbol. She had doubts on this and therefore asked a staff nurse whether the drops were the right ones. The nurse was also not assure about the same and gave the acid to her. (Veatch, 2005) The student nurse then passed the drops to the plaintiff. After a friend helping the plaintiff put the drops in the ear, the eardrum was damaged permanently. This shows that the carbol acid given to the patient was unsafe. In this case, the plaintiff had the legal right to sue the doctor and management of Perth hospital. This is because they had a contractual relationship. In this case the management had to ensure that due care is exercised in the process of administering healthcare This is because there was negligence on the part of doctor, staff nurse and student nurse in Perth hospital. (Kerridge, 2004) Negligence of stakeholders General analysis of Henson v Perth hospital shows that three main stakeholders exhibited negligence of care in their duty. They include the following; i. Doctor ii. Staff nurse iii. Student nurse Doctor Analysis of Henson v Perth Hospital case shows that there was negligence in the entire case. It is very clear that the student nurse had only eighteen months of experience in the hospital and yet he or she was given the responsibility to get the ear drops. This should not have been the case because of her inexperience he or she was bound to make mistakes. This clearly means that the doctor practiced negligence in his line of duty. The skills therefore shown by the doctor in the case were below professional requirements or standards. This means, the resident doctor in charge of the casualty department owed the plaintiff or patient some duty of care. (Penrose, 2005) There was also negligence on the doctor’s part since he failed to write down the prescription. This is a requirement in the health profession and therefore the failure to document the prescription was negligence. This is considering the fact that had he written down, the student nurse would have easily checked to know whether the drops were supposed to be carbol acid or not. The doctor therefore did not uphold the standards of skill required for his position. (Penrose, 2005) Staff nurse Another instance where negligence is seen is when the student nurse decides to get clarification from an experienced nurse in the hospital. The nurse instead of confirming with the relevant doctor simply gives the student nurse the drops. This is negligence and she should have had duty of care of finding out whether the drops were the right ones or not. This was also negligence in line of duty and also his or her responsibility. The staff nurse who gave the student nurse carbol acid also owed the plaintiff duty of care. (Veatch, 2005) Student nurse It is also evident that the student nurse acted in negligence since he or she should have sought further clarification from the doctor. This is considering the fact that the staff nurse was not very sure about the exact ear drops requested by the doctor. In this case, the student nurse also owed the patient (plaintiff) duty of care. (Veatch, 2005) Conclusion Donoghue v Stevenson’s case reveals that Donoghue and her friend went to a cafe in Paisley and ordered for ice, a pear and ice cream drink. The owner o the case poured ginger beer into ice cream tumbler. When Donoghue’s friend was adding more beer, a decomposing snail came out. The law at this time only allowed parties in contractual relationship to sue. In this case, Donoghue was not allowed to sue the manufacturer of ginger beer. The law was therefore changed to include any person that is injured or adversely affected by acts of omission or commission. This case is very important as it enables people to sue parties for negligence even if they are not in a contractual relationship. In healthcare, this has encouraged healthcare practitioners to be more careful and professional in line of duty. In the Henson v Perth hospital case, the patient had pains in left ear and went for treatment in Perth hospital. The doctor according to his evidence ordered the student nurse to give acid carbol drops and glycerine. The nurse heard carbol acid. On asking staff nurse, the nurse not being sure gives the acid. The plaintiff suffered permanent damage to eardrum. In this case the doctor, staff nurse and student nurse showed negligence in line of duty. This is because the doctor gave the student nurse the responsibility despite the student’s inexperience. The nurse failed to confirm whether the eardrops were the right ones required. The student nurse also failed in confirming from the doctor. In this case, it is therefore very apparent that the three stakeholders owed the plaintiff duty of care. This means that he had the plaintiff had the right to sue the management of the hospital for negligence because of exiting contractual relationship between the two. Read More