Legal Procedures Alternative Dispute Resolution - Essay Example

In the given case, itis true to say that the patient and the attorney can easily press charges on the hospital but once the report from the hospital is presented to the jury and the judge it will be a case of basically trying to solve the problem since it was just an incident that occurred. The judgment passed might favor one party and one has to spend some money to when filling a lawsuit. According to Avruch (1998) filling of a lawsuit is really not necessary as alternative conflict resolution alternatives can be used. The ADR alternatives are as follows: Mediation Advantages of mediation The following up of a case in a trial is very expensive and mediation is less expensive. Mediation is considered by most courts as a part of the process of litigation. Mediation can also be said to be swift as the mediator will ensure that both the parties are not inconvenienced in any way because the mediator will give both parties enough time and also present to the facts before allowing them to review the main cause of conflict. Unlike court judgments, the conclusion to the case between the hospital and the patient will agreeable to both the parties. It is also true to say that the conclusion under mediation does not have to ensure that one party benefits while the other loses (Van, 2002). Disadvantages of mediation There is also one sure thing about the use of a mediator in the solving of a conflict. One party might decide not to reveal the true happening. In this case, the patient or the hospital report might just be presented so as to favour or hide the truth of the happenings. Meditation can also come with the disadvantage of failing to bring the case to a conclusion hence it would have wasted time. It is always very important for a case to be handled or assessed early. The first and most critical part of a judgment is normally early assessment of the happening. In another case the, the plaintiff in this case the patient might fail to keep their word on what the conclusion might have been. Out of dissatisfaction they might press charges later. A legal precedent can also not be set in the case the patient in particular fails to keep the word they might have stated. However much mediation comes with some challenges it is much better than litigation (James & Monagan, 2009). Negotiation Unlike in meditation, negotiation does not involve a third party but can be used to resolve a conflict between two parties instead of filling a lawsuit. It is undoubtedly the most flexible and transparent form of conflict resolution. Advantages of negotiations Both of the parties are able to set out exactly what they may want in order to solve the conflict. In this case the patient might present a document that states what they want in form of compensation and the hospital management can sit down and negotiate on the same in order to solve the conflict that is there. This means that the chances of a reasonable agreement that would solve the conflict are higher. Negotiations also come with the advantage of not being mandatory. In the event the hospital or the patient feels that they do not want to negotiate then they are at liberty to do so. Negotiations come further with the advantage of not allowing the involvement of a third party. In some cases the third part might be bias and the conclusion that they might come up with might not favor both parties. Conclusions that will be made under negotiation will not have to be conclusions that are under the law. This is to say that they only bind the two parties that were involved in the negotiation process. While the parties will be negotiating in good faith, both parties will easily manage to put out their interest and this will boost the relationship that existed between the patient and the hospital. Finally, once the patient and the hospital decide to negotiate instead of litigation this would mean that they both save costs of the lawsuit process (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1992). Disadvantage of negotiation The negotiation process however comes with a number of disadvantages. The hospital and the patient might come to a conclusion though one party might be at a disadvantage since their intention was just to solve the conflict and move on to other urgent matters that they might be having at the moment. It is essential for both the hospital and the patient to understand their mandate while negotiating or otherwise one party will not participate effectively as required during the process of bargaining. Since negotiations do not involve a third party, the two negotiating parties might fail to reach an agreement and thus this might result in one party denying the other the chance of negotiating and further on placing a lawsuit (Brostoff & Sinsheimer, 2013). The patient might decide to take advantage of the hospital because a third party is not involved. In the event the patient also decides to quit or rather pull away from the negotiating table the hospital might have incurred losses since it might have invested some of its resources on the process of negotiation. In some other cases, the two parties that are negotiating to solve the conflict might believe or rather posses different ideologies making it very difficult for the process to take place or leave no room at all for the possibility of negotiations. The issue of trust also pops up as a disadvantage of the negotiation process. What if at the end of the negotiation all that had been said or agreed upon is not met by the parties? This is the main question. Finally, a party that knows that they are on the wrong might decide to take negotiation as an option just because they might not want the other party to exercise its rights under the constitution (Brostoff & Sinsheimer, 2013). Conclusion It is preferably more convenient for both the parties to consider alternative dispute resolution options instead of filing lawsuits in this case. The use of a mediator and negotiating are the best options even if they come with some disadvantages. References: Avruch, K. (1998). Culture & conflict resolution. Washington, D.C: United States Inst. of Peace Press. Brostoff, T., & Sinsheimer, A. (2013). United States legal language and culture: An introduction to the U.S. Common Law System. Oxford [U.K.: Oxford University Press Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1992). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. James, E. A., & Monagan, S. L. (2009). Problem solving mediation training: Focusing on real solutions solving real problems. Stone Mountain, GA: James & Monagan. Van, G. H. (2002). Peer mediation: The complete guide to resolving conflict in our schools. Winnipeg: Portage & Main Press. Read More