Ethical and Legal Health Care Issues - Report Example

In the given case, it can be seen that there are two organisations with conflicting interests, BRAT offering rehabilitation services to people with alcohol and drug related problems whereas SNOyBY is a child day care center. A close analysis of the implications of tort law shows that BRAT owes day of duty care to SNOyBY and given that I am the administrator of the BRAT facility, it is my responsibility to set up the procedures and protocols to run the rehabilitation center in such a way that ensures compliance with the ethical standards of operation. Against this background, this reflective project sought to critically analyse the ethical duty care owed to SNoBY if any and the tort law was given due consideration when implementing the procedures and protocols. The report specifically deals with explaining key concepts such as ethical and legal issues in heath care as well as the tort law and how they can impact on the implementation of procedures and protocols in the operations of the organisation. Table of contents Introduction 3 Ethical and legal health care issues 3 Tort law and its implications 4 Reasonability 5 Proximity 6 Aims of tort laws 10 Conclusion 10 References 12 Introduction 501c3 is a non-profit organization that is developing and opening an in-patient drug and alcohol rehabilitation counselling facility called “Bristol Residential Addiction Therapy” (BRAT). This facility will be located on property which is just adjacent to another already established non-profit organization that offers child care to low income families called “Social Nurturers of Bristol’s Youth” (SNoBY). As a matter of conscience, the administrators at SNoBY are adamantly opposed to an alcohol and drug rehab facility being next to their day care property and have unsuccessfully fought to prevent the BRAT facility from being built. Given that I am the administrator of the BRAT facility, it is my responsibility to set up the procedures and protocols to run the rehabilitation center. Against this background, this reflective project seeks to critically analyse the ethical duty care owed to SNoBY if any and the tort law is given due consideration when implementing the procedures and protocols. The first part of the report specifically deals with explaining key concepts such as ethical and legal issues in heath care as well as the tort law. The main body of the report will be concerned with analysing some of the considerations that can be attributed to BRAT’s liability of duty care to SNoBY. Ethical and legal health care issues Basically, the term ethics is primarily concerned with distinguishing between what is good and bad while special attention is focused on issues of morality and professional conduct where honesty and integrity should be seen as the guiding principles in an organisation. According to the Center for Ethics in Health Care [http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/continuing-education/center-for-ethics/ ] It is the duty of health professionals to ensure that they uphold to the principles of honesty and fairness. Legally, the issue of ethics in health care is sticking as the professionals are bound by the law to abide by the regulations maintain that confidentiality and privacy should always be upheld. Given that BRAT will be dealing with rehabilitation and counselling of alcohol and drug in-patients, it is the duty of the administrator to ensure that they operate within ethical and acceptable conduct such that their activities are not harmful to the others. It can be noted that the behaviour of the patients that will be dealt with by BRAT is often unpredictable and can be harmful to the children at the day care next door. As a point of departure, there is need to establish if there is duty of care owed to SNOyBY by BRAT through an analysis of the legal framework of the tort law. Tort law and its implications A tort law can be described as a civil wrong not arising from a contract and in the case of negligence, one should owe due consideration to one’s neighbour (Capiro Industries vs. Dickman 1990). Negligence can be described as a civil wrong arising from the act of negligence by doing something a reasonable man would not do and a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owes a duty of care (Donoghue V. Stevenson 1932). It is of paramount importance for the plaintiff to be able to prove that the defendant had duty to take care of and that duty of care has been breached in order to win the claim that the subsequent injury after the action of the defendant could have been avoided in the event that he would have acted within reasonable limits. Thus, in case of tort law, specific duties apply to everyone and are imposed by the law. As going to be critically analysed below, it can be noted that BRAT owes duty care to SNOyBY since it is dealing with people with unpredictable behaviour which can be harmful to the minors under the custody of the day care. These two organisations are dealing with people with extreme differences in their behaviour especially BRAT so being the administrator of the institution, I will have a duty to ensure that people undergoing therapy as well as rehabilitation from effects of alcohol and drug abuse are not harmful to the defenceless minors at the day care. In order to prove the existence of day care duty, some conditions should prevail where a defendant can be taken to task if this duty is breached. Under the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), the following conditions should be taken into consideration which include; foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. In some cases it may not always be the case that a duty of care exists but common sense ought to prevail to avoid serious injury to another person. Indeed, some situations are foreseeable to any reasonable person before he or she embarks on a particular action that may be dangerous to another person. But in this case, people being rehabilitated from impacts of alcohol and drug abuse may not be that reasonable so it is the duty of the responsible authorities to ensure that their behaviour does not impact on the children who are the neighbours. Essentially, the purpose of the day care is to protect the children hence the need for the administrator at BRAT to ensure that he observes that duty care owed to the child day care center. Reasonability People with problems related to alcoholism and drug abuse often have psychological problems and at times they do not reason like other normal people without such kind of problem. They may in any case intentionally or unintentionally expose the minors to danger and this will leave them liable for negligent behaviour where it is expected that a reasonable person would have foreseen the imminent danger in the event that any mistake might seriously harm the claimant in this case. It is the duty of the administrator to ensure that the safety interests of the neighbours are protected since they are minors. Implementing the procedures and protocols in running the rehabilitation center will require the administrator to know that he is responsible for ensuring that the safety of the children next door is protected. A good example can be drawn from an incident where a person with alcoholic related problems playfully hits and injures a child at the day care center. Any reasonable person in this case could see that playing with minors in such a way can harmful and dangerous which leaves the administrators of BRAT liable for breach of duty care owed to SNOyBY which is dealing with defenceless children who need to be protected and taken care of such that they are not injured. Some situations are foreseeable before a person embarks on a particular action that may be dangerous to another person but people with unstable behaviour may not be that reasonable enough. The fact that the defendant may be playing though he may not be aware of the related danger would leave him liable to negligent behaviour. Day of duty care would have been neglected in the unfortunate situation hence the need for the administrator to ensure that no such kind of thing can happen which is the reason why the officials at SNOyBY were adamantly against the idea of having the rehabilitation centre for people with drug and alcohol problems to be built near their day care center for children. Proximity In the case of Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) proximity is described as a situation where a neighbour is a person who is closely and directly affected by somebody’s actions and ought to reasonably take that fact into account. Simply put, the aspect of proximity loosely refers to closeness to somebody which should be taken into consideration to ensure that somebody’s actions should not infringe on another person’s right to enjoy his or her safety. It implies that BRAT’s closeness to SNOyBY means that it is bound to ensure that the safety of the kids who are the neighbours is observed at all costs. At times, practical jokes or unbecoming behaviour are often dangerous within a close range which is the reason why I as an administrator at BRAT will have the responsibility to ensure that the duty care owed to the day care center is observed. It would then be difficult to ascertain whether the defendant has been playing or that his actions would be intentional. As far as negligence is concerned, the element of proximity plays a crucial role as it would seek to establish the extent to which the defendant can justify his actions by arguing that the resultant injury to the next person would have been a genuine mistake. Whilst foreseeability and proximity can be established in a case of negligence, if the court of law feels that it is not reasonable or just to infer duty of care in the circumstances surrounding the issue, it may be difficult to establish a duty of care. For instance in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989), the court could not establish that the police owe a duty of care. An injury resulting from the actions of somebody who is known to be unreasonable may be problematic to establish if day of duty care is owed to the injured person. In some cases the resultant injury to the next person would be a result of genuine mistake where negligent behavior may be difficult to determine but all the same, for the sake of public as well as individual safety, the duty of care is owed to everyone hence the need to be always on the lookout against such actions which can cause harm or injury to the next person. Under tort laws, everyone has a duty to care for the person next which is the reason why the administrator at BRAT has a role to ensure that implementing procedures and protocols takes into consideration the ethical duty of care owed to the children who are defenceless in this particular case. However, there is need to establish the standard expectations of a reasonable man in order to establish if the duty of care has been breached. It does not require great skill or vice versa to observe the duty of care and there are mainly two factors which ought to be considered as a way of trying to establish if the duty of care has been breached. The likelihood and seriousness of risk of injury ought to be taken into consideration when attempting to measure the defendant’s behaviour against the risk he would have exposed the plaintiff to. Considering that this issue involves defenceless children, there is need to ensure that such unbecoming behaviour by people undergoing rehabilitation from the side effects of alcohol and drug abuse is always checked and controlled so as to protect the safety of the children. In principle, the tort law states that one’s actions should not harm or injure the neighbour and in such a case that the party involved may not be held liable for certain actions, then the responsible person with the custodianship of such person should ensure that he or she does not injure the neighbours. In the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) the editor of Salmond on the Law of Torts says: “There are two factors in determining the magnitude of a risk - the seriousness of the injury risked, and the likelihood of the injury being in fact caused.” Certain actions are potentially very dangerous and any right thinking and reasonable person ought to see that such kind of playing would put other people at great risk of being injured. The defendant in the event of injury should always be concerned about taking safety precautions against injuring the plaintiff. It can be difficult to establish if the duty care has been breached with regards to people who are not mentally stable. Against this background, it is the duty of the responsible authorities to ensure that when they implement their procedures and protocols they should be liable for any action that can be done by the people under their custody. They should know that working with the people with problems related to alcohol and drug abuse are not very reliable to be trusted especially when it comes to the safety of the neighbours who may be children. The tort law can also be viewed from another dimension which is regarded as trespassing. In the case of trespass to the person, the duty is to refrain from infringing a person’s bodily integrity and the duty is owed to those directly affected by the action. Each human being has a right to own property hence the need to safeguard it against any form of trespassing as it would often expose it to some form of risk. When it comes to the use of tort law, it is the role of the law to protect the plaintiff by owing the duty to everyone who may be accidentally harmed without seeking such kind of action. As a result of the closeness of BRAT to SNOyBY, there are likely chances of people undergoing rehabilitation from the negative impacts of alcohol abuse to encroach to the geographical space belonging to the child day care and this may result in them injuring the children at play. It becomes the duty of the responsible person to ensure that this kind of scenario does not happen as it may be harmful to the neighbours who are defenceless children who also need to be protected. Whilst in some cases a duty of care can be established and a breach of it as well, it may not be enough to prove a case of negligence unless some form of damage or injury can be identified. Damages in the form of injury or loss of property as a result of negligent behavior can be cited as prove that the plaintiff deserves some form of compensation as a result of the loss that would have resulted in the unprecedented behavior of the defendant. Basically, tortuous behavior may entitle a ‘victim’ to compensation or some other remedy since the damages caused would be a result of negligent behaviour. In the event that the mentally unstable people have caused harm or damage to the members of the child day, it is the duty of BRAT as an organisation to ensure that it is answerable to the charges that may be levelled against it since it will be responsible for the activities of its members. Aims of the tort laws The aims of tort laws are specifically designed to compensate someone who has suffered a wrong resulting in injury or loss of property at the hands of the defendant and to deter persons from acting in such a way that would infringe another person’s rights. Tort laws are also designed to protect personal property, security as well as economic interests by providing legal capacity upon which damages can be claimed in the event that there has been injury caused to someone or there has been loss of property. Conclusion Over and above, it can be noted that in tort law, specific duties are imposed by the law and are applicable to everyone. In the particular case given, it can be noted that BRAT owes duty of care to its neighbour SNOyBY given that this organisation deals with day care services for children who are harmless. BRAT deals with people with unpredictable behaviour which can be harmful to the kids the reason why it has to take ethical considerations in implementing its protocols and procedures in handling these people. The plaintiff which may be SNOyBY in this case may claim damages or compensation in the event of loss of property or injury to another person where it can be proved that the day of duty care has been neglected. If the defendant has breached the duty by falling below expected standards, the defendant has caused harm to the plaintiff (causation) and that harm would have been reasonably foreseeable (remoteness) he will be liable for paying damages. People with alcohol and drug related problems may not be held liable for breach of this duty care but the responsible persons for their activities will be held liable. References Oregon Health Science University: Center for Ethics in Health Care.(N.D) Retrieved 08 N0vember 2010 from http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/continuing-education/center-for-ethics/ Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords Retrieved on 08 Nov 2010. From: http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20abcd/donoghue_v_Stevenson.htm Koffman L & McDonald E. (2007), The Law of Contract, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press Negligence UK (2007) Retrieved on 08 November 2010 From: http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Negligence_(uk) Negligence: duty of care and breach of duty, retrieved on 08 November 2010, from: http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/tort/tort_ch3.pdf Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 13 December 1950, Retrieved on 08 November 2010, From: http://www.a-level-law.com/caselibrary/PARIS%20v%20STEPNEY%20BOROUGH%20COUNCIL%20%5B1951%5D%20AC%20367%20-%20HL.doc Read More