Ethics and the Law -- A Case Study - Assignment Example

Ethics and Law Ethics and Law According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), an appropriate medical screening examination is to be administered to any patient who presents himself or herself to any department that has been established as institution that provides urgent care or emergency (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012). Upon completion of the MSE, if the results reveal presence of an emergency condition, then the patient is to be treated and then discharged or is admitted as an inpatient.

This is followed by the transfer of this patient from the emergency department. The main purpose of this Act was to prevent patient dumping. This would occur when emergency rooms choose to deny an individual treatment on the basis that the individual is unable to pay and instead send the patient to another facility to seek treatment. The patient is an illegal alien from South America and had presented himself at the hospital for treatment. The president chose to deny the patient treatment because of his inability to pay for the extensive surgery and instead paid the patient money so that he can go back to his home country to seek medical treatment.

This action by the hospital manager is patient dumping. By denying the patient treatment and choosing to send him back to his home country due to inability to pay for the service is in violation of the EMTALA Act of 1986. Such an action is subject to a financial penalty enforced by the CMS. The OIG has also got jurisdiction to impose the sanctions against those institutions that violate the provisions of the EMTALA Act (Buchbinder, &Shanks, 2007).Apart from the legal aspect of the case, the action is subject to a number of ethical considerations.

According to the principles of beneficience and nonmaleficence, a health administrator is expected to do his best in order to offer the best to his recipients. This translates to handling the case with the patient’s care first then the finances later. Although, the health administrator is expected to carefully consider the cost benefit of the options at his disposal, he is supposed to have the patient’s welfare as the most important factor. These two principles insist that no action or inaction should be taken that harms the patient (Buchbinder, &Shanks, 2007).

If I were the president I would have treated the patient. I would have examined the patient (MSE) and determine the urgency of the medical condition of the man. Upon receiving the results, if they indicate that the condition was an emergency, I would go ahead with the treatment. This will not only be in accordance with the law (EMTALA Act) and more importantly uphold the relevant ethical principles. I would not have focused on saving the hospital the costs of treating the patient. This is because in doing so, the hospital is at a risk of having financial penalties (up to $ 50,0000) imposed on it by OIG or CMS due to the violation of the EMTALA Act (Zibulewsky, 2001).

I would inform the reporter that I decided to treat the patient and in so doing complied with the provisions of the EMTALA Act while at the same time observing fundamental ethical principles that emphasize on the importance of upholding human life.ReferencesBuchbinder, S.B., & Shanks, N.H. (2012). Ethics and law. In M. Gartside & T.Reilley (Ed.), Introduction to healthcare management (333-363). Burlington. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012)..Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).

Retrieved from: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and- Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/EMTALA Zibulewsky, J.(2001). The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): What it it and what it means for physicians. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent), 14(4), 339-346.