Health Information Ethics and Law Examination - Assignment Example

Running Head: HEALTH Health Information Ethics and Law Examination Name Course Instructor Date A.1. Adversarial and inquisitorial court processes Adversarial and inquisitorial court processes are used to depict forms of justice structures. According to Law Commission (2012), these two court processes have neither one agreed upon meaning nor are they individually purely practiced by any one government judicial system. In the adversarial system, the duty of collecting facts about a case is carried out by the police force and the defense and then the assessment of the facts rests on a nonaligned judge. In the inquisitorial system a self-determining prosecutor or probing magistrate manage the criminal analysis of grave cases. The two can seek specific evidence in order to ensure that there is adequate proof to take a criminal examination to trial. The Law Commission further asserts that the adversarial system is founded on distrust in the steadfastness of the prosecution facts. It usually carries on in the supposition that misguided rulings can be overcome by permitting the defense to verify and hence contradict the proof provided at trial, because innocence or guiltiness of a case can be ascertained at this stage.1 There is confidence in the reliability of pre-trial analysis carried out by the police force or the prosecutor in inquisitorial systems so as to tell apart the steadfast and the undependable evidence, a move that aids in identifying errors in the case and thus making available constructive proof to the defense. This makes pre-trial analysis an importance aspect in the entire process of unearthing the truth. Adversarial systems consign the victim to the position of a witness while the inquisitorial system gives them a significant position of assisting the pre-trial unearths necessary facts for trial. The adversarial system is regularly practiced in the United States and Canada while the inquisitorial system is regularly practiced in Europe and in civil trials in the United States and Canada. During the trial of OJ Simpson, who had been indicted of murdering his wife, the adversarial structure was used.2 A.2. Difference between civil and criminal law According to Cantrel (2007), civil law usually comprise of a set of all-inclusive rules often codified and are usually construed and made functional by the judges. Civil law usually shelters legal rights and welfares of individuals and associations, state welfare and the communal wellbeing in general. Civil laws usually ensure fairness and security in civil dealings thus fulfilling the material and religious needs of individuals and in the process endorse socio-economic growth. On the other hand, the criminal law enables the sheltering of individuals from dealings that disturb the social order of a society for instance battering and massacres. Criminal law initiates regulations that ensure serene, secure and orderly existence in the society.3 Individuals who break the set code of laws are usually put on trial and if found blameworthy, they are put away. The civil law is usually concerned with the rights and obligations of human beings towards each other while the criminal law ensures that there is public order. The criminal law is mostly used in the courts of Western Australia. A criminal law claim can be made when an individual assaults another or is accused of murder while civil claims can occur when an organization sues another organization, for example, due to a breach of contract. A.3. Objects of the Health Records Act 2001 The Health Records Act 2001 had several objectives that it intended to achieve. It stipulated that health records in the public and private quarters were to be handled reliably. On the same, health data was to be protected from the public sphere thus ensuring the privacy of the information. Moreover, if need be, the information was to be used lawfully. Patients’ records were to be made available to them whenever they required them retrieved for their use. To top it up, individuals were to be made knowledgeable of their health care requirements. Lastly, the Health Records Act 2001 was to ensure that excellent health care was made available to all who needed it. In the administration of the health services the very old and the handicapped were to be taken care of. A.4. the Guardianship Act 1987- Sect 33A This was the Act that introduced the person responsible for another person with reference to this section. The guardians or persons responsible are usually required when consent is to be given regarding a medical condition of a patient. For one to be responsible for another person, the act stipulates that that person should be knowledgeable of the effects of the proposed management of the patient and should also understand what it means to consent to the proposed medication. One should be able to carry out the tasks bestowed on the person responsible effectively or they can be stripped off this role if they prove to be incompetent. A.5. Negligence Issues With reference to the Rogers v Whittaker case, a patient has the right of being informed of the side effects and other issues that may arise with the practice of certain curative measures. A patient is to be informed of the outcomes of the assessment, diagnosis and disease management so as to give the consent or be fully aware of the outcome. Suing a hospital for negligence is a little bit difficult because there are minimum requirements that one has to meet to thrive in their petition. A patient must undergo fifteen percent of a nasty case situation in order to be able to start negligence proceedings against a doctor. This means that if the injuries suffered are below this, no matter how grave they might seem, they are not refundable by Australian law. Moreover, despite reporting the negligence within the stipulated time period, a patient should also sufficiently prove that there was a violation in the care that they were subjected to contrary to the stipulated care by the hospital. In such issues, a specialist’s view is usually required B.2 A valid legal consent A valid legal consent is a premeditated deal by an individual to undertake or undergo a certain process after they have been made aware of the dependable information regarding the decision that they have taken. All the information, be it the merits, demerits and the risks involved, are usually made available to the individual before they make the step that they are willing to take. Equipped with a valid legal consent, one is able to settle any disputable issues that may arise thus avoiding any legal proceedings. If it is in the medical quarters, a valid consent enables a patient determine the treatment that they would love administered on them. The availability of consent ensures that its application tallies with the agreement made.4 A valid legal consent usually has several components that should be adhered to make it acceptable. The consent should be signed by the individual issuing it to show that they are in agreement with what they have decided. Moreover, the individual signing the consent should be well informed in order to comprehend what they are doing hence make an informed decision. The competence of the individual making the consent should be verifiable so as to ascertain their mental power to make the decisions at hand. Lastly, consent is usually voluntary and not forced. Consent can either be verbal or written, but for the purpose of record keeping, a written consent is usually effective. B. 3 The Gillick test The Gillick test refers to a test that was meant to ascertain a young individual’s capability to make informed consents regarding their health care. According to the Law Reform Commission (2008), a young person can adequately make an informed consent provided that relevant information and guidance is made available to them. This test came into being in 1986 during a case known as Gillick and it has since been adopted into the Australian common law. Before the inception of this test, the young individuals stood no chance of consenting to their own health care. The bone of contention in this test was the issue of whether a young individual could consent to the use of contraceptives chiefly the oral pills. The health department and social security has passed that a young girl under the age of sixteen could be given contraceptives to avert the consequences of sex with no approval from the parents. Mrs. Gillick claimed that this was contrary to the parents’ rights to issue the pills to the minors without the parents’ approval. The House of Lords claimed girls were growing up faster than expected and thus had to be allowed some room to their own choices. With reference to confidentiality laws and consent, young people in Australia have a right to the privacy of their medical records thus parents cannot have the full knowledge of their children’s health records. An individual above eighteen years can make an informed consent but those below that can be made understand the involvements, and if they do then their consent is allowed.5 C. true or false questions C.1. Health information held on the clinical file does not include letters of referral or previous x-rays TRUE C.2. The Coroners Court is court that uses inquisitorial court processes TRUE C.3. A request for access to information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not need to be in writing and can be made orally. FALSE C.4. Access to information on a clinical file can be given to other clinicians employed by the hospital regardless of whether they are part of the patient’s treating team or not. FALSE D. 1 Travels of a medical record and the myth of privacy D.1.1 Record Components The records created with reference to Mrs Drocker’s medical case were personal information record, medical record, medical history record and hospital protocol case mix record. The personal information record contained Mrs. Drocker’s individual attributes, for instance; names, date of birth, individual status, the symptoms of her ailment and the analysis of the tumour while the medical record further clarified her situation. The medical record also bears the diagnosis of what had been ailing her. Drocker’s medical history record entails all the diagnosis that she has gone through and also her psychiatric condition. The hospital protocol case mix record contains Drocker’s clinical remarks and information on her private health insurance fund.6 D.1.2 Confidentiality and privacy There are several principles that protect Drocker’s privacy in her medical records. Under zone 1, her personal medical information is protected under the ethical and lawful principal. Under this principle, anybody who receives her information is to keep it confidential. For any information to be revealed about her condition, she has to approve. The National Privacy Principles also protect her confidentiality although healthcare providers can access her information but are not to relate them to any third party. On the same, her principles to privacy can be breached under zone three for instance in cases whereby the clinics she has been to have to be investigated for improper practice. Drocker’s medical records may be counterchecked if her doctor is thought to be carrying the duties improperly7. D.1.3 Informational self-determination Informational self-determination is usually faced with the problem of exceptions to the privacy and confidentially of a patient’s records when zone two and three are applied. In Australia, the healthcare supporting programs are allowed to access confidential information in order to make their own analysis and thus Drocker’s informational self-determination ceases to be operational. Under zone three, her private information can be accessed without her consent which becomes an issue in the preservation of her privacy. The management of health information systems is important to the health information managers.8 D.1.5 Patients confidentiality Patients’ confidentiality and privacy principles are strained because with the issue of the electronic health records being accessed as observed as per zone two and three, then there is no privacy and confidentiality. Before the patient information is accessed, they should be allowed to alter the available information so that they are nor portrayed negatively. The health information managers should always ensure that what is available for analysis will not distort a patients’ image due to the availability of the very private information they might have shared. Moreover, they should limit the number or bodies that are able to gain access to a patient’s data. In conclusion, they should ensure that the stored information on the electronic health records is well protected from access.9 D. 2. Late-term abortion D.2.1Right to privacy The Chief Coroner breached the patient’s right to privacy when he gave out Ms. X’s medical record to the Senator without her consent and Dr. De Campoby gave her medical records to the Victoria State Coroner.10 D.2.2 Deputy Coroner faced a dilemma because a coronial inquiry was limited to investigating reportable deaths and the still births fell outside its jurisdiction11. D.2.3 The hospital did not want the access of their patient’s file by the Medical practitioners Board on the basis that the records of patients in public hospitals belong to a class of documents that are protected from disclosure and are immune from such a production.12 D.2.4 One challenge was that the production of medical record was protected by privilege in reliance on section 28(2) of the Evidence Act 1958 and the production of the document was subject to protection of section 141 (2).The second one was that the handing over of a patient’s documents was contrary to the public interest and public immunity existing in relation to the patient’s records held by the hospital, and thus were immune from production.13 Read More