Business law - Case - Essay Example

Business Law The preliminary responsibility of a doctor is to save the life of a patient even if some minor damages or problems may result while saving a life. As per medical ethics, a doctor cannot stay away from the responsibility of saving a life if any possibility is there. In the given case, Dr. Dogood saved the life of Karl even though Karl suffered some minor problems. The doctor’s efforts need to be valued in that sense. At the same time, the doctor was culprit of taking risk upon the life of the patient.

The doctor came to know about the malfunctioning of the ECR instrument just before the surgery and he could have delayed the surgery till the equipment gets repaired. But he has neglected the aesthetic aspects of the treatment and thought that causing a burn to the patient is negligible as part of saving the life of the patient. In that sense the doctor was culprit of neglecting certain critical things in his profession. If the surgery was unavoidable at that juncture, probably the doctor’s actions could have been justified.

On the other hand, there are no such worries in declaring the ECR instrument manufacturer as the major culprit in this case. This manufacturer has sold defective products in the market which caused damages to the users. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to test the quality of the product fully before introducing it in to the market. He should ensure that his product may not cause any damages to the users. No product manufacturer has the right to sell defective products in the market.

The specifications and usage instructions of the product should be given to the users by the manufacturer and the manufacturer is responsible for any malfunctioning of the product provided the users use it exactly as per the instructions given by the manufacturer through the product manual. So the manufacturer of the ECR instrument is 100% responsible for this crime and need to be compensated Karl for that. Apart from the doctor and the ECR manufacturer, the hospital management is also responsible for Karl’s agony.

The management purchased cheap quality products and took the risk of using it in the treatment of patients. It is the responsibility of the management to ensure the quality of the products they purchased before testing it on others. So, in my opinion, Karl can consider suing against the hospital management also. Anaesthesiologist and the nurses have nothing to do with this case. The duty of the anaesthesiologist is confined to the anaesthesia alone. He has nothing to do with the usage of the ECR instrument.

He is not responsible for the damages caused to a patient other than the anaesthesia problems. The nurses were also innocent in this case in my opinion. Nurses obey the instructions of the doctors while performing the surgery like treatments. They cannot deny the instructions of the doctor at the time of surgery like serious treatment options. Moreover, the nurses may not have adequate knowledge about the functioning of this instrument. In that sense, there is no point in suing against the nurses also.

In my opinion, the ECR manufacturer the hospital management and the doctor are the major culprits in that order while anaesthesiologist and the nurses were innocents.