The Liability in Medicine - Essay Example

You’re 14 June 2006 Medial Law: The Liability in Medicine Case Treatment process of Rowan whose prognosis and medical regimen was carried out by Dr. Evil. Within the framework of this particular medical case Dr. Evil is indeed guilty of medical negligence. This is of course relative to the care of this patient from the doctor himself. What has transpired in this case is also known as “malpractice” which is derivative of medical negligence. Negligence by a doctor such as Dr. Evil is a tort and a tort is a civil wrong which therefore makes this doctors actions a civil wrong against the patient. For example, in regards to the doctors duty in this case, it can be perceived that there was not a correct consultation given nor was there an accurate diagnosis either. Therefore a breach of duty has also occurred and what this means is that the expressed or implied contract between this doctor and patient has been violated (Brooten 1987, p. 1). For example when Dr. Evil failed to read any of the instructions about the medication that he prescribed to the patient he violated the contract of duty between himself and the patient. This shows extreme negligence on his part and the tort law that covers this area would define this as being valid and providing burden of proof. Due to the fact that negligence has become such a profound problem within the field of medicine in the UK in the past decade the tort laws have become very strict on the specific care of patients as well. Therefore, in today’s society, it is found that the GP’s duty is fundamentally suppose to provide reasonable and dignified care, skill and judgement in the basic practice of his or her profession and when negligence does appear then they are suppose to take full responsibility for the adverse outcomes placed onto the patient in their care. Dr. Evil will thereby have to answer for wrongfully not following the guidelines that were implied in the drug combination he gave to his patient. This case is somewhat similar to Adderly v. Bremner which defined the GP in this case as being negligent in not having changed syringes to vaccinate 38 patients. What occurred instead was the GP used one main needle for every two patients which promoted the idea of liability onto this GP. This is due to the fact that some of the patients were infected with septicaemia (blood poisoning) due to this judgemental error by the attending GP. It also defines the fact that the GP did not provide the required standard of care that was expected of him by the patients. In retrospect it would seem that any reasonable GP would have in fact changed the syringes after each patient to avoid the adverse consequences which transpired. Therefore the GP only has himself to blame for the negativities that arose out of this case (Picard, 1984, p.25). Furthermore, according to the information within the case the GP did not follow the instructions that accompanied the vaccine, which provided emphases onto the fact that a sterile needle and syringe were required to be utilized for each patient. There in this case shows a perfect example of how a GP who does not follow orders illustrates un-professionalism and thereby places a hardship on innocent patients. Dr. Evil is just as guilty as this GP as he followed similar steps which lead to an adverse outcome for his patient so therefore he can face severe penal consequences according to the tort of laws (Brooten 1987, p. 1). Case 2: Treatment of Gwyneth through Dr. Smith This particular case finds that regardless of Dr. Smith’s inexperience in caring for patients he sill should have had the required knowledge and expert skills to properly treat this patient. GP’s or Emergency room doctors are ran through a battery of extremely difficult medical tests to ensure that they have acquired the necessary medical skills that they need to treat people efficiently and with high quality care. Dr. Smith apparently fell through the loop holes of the educational system and therefore this patient was left to suffer due to his “gross negligence” in his care. In a hospital environment the hospital authority is suppose to guarantee that emergency room doctors or any practicing physician for that matter have the necessary skills to treat patients, as has been stated. For instance in this type of environment there must be a way to strictly enforce the idea that every GP or physician has been appropriately trained and has specific knowledge of some form of health care law and also of complaints procedures and civil litigation practice so that they will show extra care and consideration in their care of patients. Also, there should be an implementation of clinical governance so that there is good reliability of accepted standards and that audits and routine management are monitored. Perhaps if this type of involvement would have been carried out during the treatment of this patient there would not have been an adverse outcome so Dr. Smith is not the only one at fault for negligence here. It could very well also be the paramedics who brought the patient in, the governing management body over the treatment and other nursing personnel who over saw the administering of certain medical needs of the patient as well (Bailey & Bowman 2000, p. 85). The case of Dr. Andrew Holt can be compared to this one as this doctor seemed to lack sufficient knowledge to care for the children who were suffering with cardiac problems and of which he caused more problems by prescribing the incorrect drugs to treat the children. It was stated that due to his lack of educational training (which can be compared with Dr. Smith), these children suffered severe adverse outcomes in their health which could have easily been prevented (Hazelton 2005). This shows that as has been stated, the training doctors go through is meant to safely guard and protect patients by ensuring the doctors are adequately trained and armed with a full body of knowledge to know how to proceed in cases such as with Gwyneth and the one that has been included in this literature. Without this form of knowledge there are going to exist judgmental errors which lead to cases of “gross negligence” and malpractice lawsuits in the long run. This is something that should be avoided at all costs; however for Dr. Smith it is too late. Treatment of Jerry through Dr. Baron This case is pretty cut and dry as Dr. Baron should have had consent from Jerry before performing any medical procedure that was varied from a traditional approach. Without proper consent GP’s, Emergency room physicians, and Surgeon’s can be held liable for any adversity that occurs in the patients’ health due to their actions. Because Jerry died under Dr. Baron’s care then there is no doubt that this doctor will be subjected to criminal proceedings due to the fact that he failed to have any form of consent to try a new experimental heart surgery. If he had followed the proper protocol the outcome that occurred probably would have never taken place but because he believed it was the correct procedure to carry out the consequences where disastrous. For instance, cases where consent by the patient is the issue (such as this one) can be very risky as medical negligence can be linked to a number of cases of which consent was granted yet the result was not what the patient wanted, or in some cases they die as has been stated (Filkins 2001, p. 467). In this apparent case Jerry died due to the experimental surgery that was done, again without consent. A case that could be compared is one where a patient did not give consent to try a new drug for the treatment of gastroenteritis and due to the GP prescribing it anyway (without the patient being aware it was a new drug) there were adverse repercussions in the individuals health because of it. Although this patient did not die it shows that following through with a medical procedure or treatment without consent by a patient can lead the GP or in the subsequent case (the surgeon Dr. Baron) down the road of medical negligence and malpractice (Whitting 2002, p. 191). Thereby Dr. Baron is wholly liable for the patients’ death and it can be proven that negligence to follow the correct protocol is involved, including a lack of consent to try the new procedure from a family member or other personal contact of Jerry’s. To summarize these three cases the facts of medical negligence and possible liability is quite clear in all three of them. Within the medical world there are now strict guidelines that physicians and all medical personnel must follow in order to avoid being faced with negligence charges from previous patients or family members. If the health care system is going to promote high quality care then they need to ensure that patient consent, training, comprehension of the medical environment/medical tools, and a strong knowledge of the law is coherent among all professional medical providers or otherwise lawsuits, and the risk of liability will escalate within the profession as these three cases have shown to be at fault for creating. Works Cited Bailey, S.H. & Bowman, M.J. “Public Authority Negligence Revisited.” Cambridge Law Journal 59 (2000): 85-132. Brooten, Kenneth. Malpractice: A Guide to Avoidance and Treatment. Orlando: Grune & Straton Incorporated (1987). Filkins, James. “With no Evil Intent.”: The Criminal Prosecution of Physicians for Medical Negligence.” Journal of Legal Medicine 22 (2001): 467-499. Hazelton, Liz. “GMC Meets over Bogus Neurologist.” The Evening Telegraph (2005): 1. Picard, Ellen I. “Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada.” 2nd Ed. Toronto, Ont.: The Carswell Company Limited (1984): 25-29. Whitting, Christian. “Physical Damage in Negligence.” Cambridge University Press 61 (2002): 189-208 Read More