Legal aspect of nursing - Case Study Example

The first part is the knowledge of the problem in question and this is followed by duty to care and finally failure to take necessary preventative measures against foreseeable harm. The physician had already conducted X-ray as a professional and signed a contract to undertake surgery on the boy the following day. This qualifies to make it clear that the physician had already established the existence of a problem (Bar, Drobnig, Alpa & European Commission, 2004).  The next action he ought to have considered is the duty to care which was pegged on his professional know how in the mind of any normal person like Jones parents.

This means that he ought to have foreseen any possible harm that would arise from any of his actions. Administering of sedation by the anaesthesian amounted to failure to take preventative action against the impending harm. There was also the vicarious liability which was associated by the health center since the physician and the anaesthesian were its employees. By being an agency to the healthcare Center, the management of the healthcare facility was likely to be brought into this legal battle.

In other words, this case constitutes negligence and breach of contract which caused loss to the parents and harm to the patients. Contractual agreement between the hospital through its agency in the physician failed to live up to its role forcing the healthcare sector to take liability.This case presents a scene of negligence on the part of the Physician. Jones parents entrusted the physician. with the safety of their son in the sense that he was expected to have reasoned from his professional knowledge and these parents had only one option which was to believe in him.

It turns out that the physician negligently procured sedatory drugs that only worsened the pain of the boy which later turned him into disability. The physician out of his skills and knowledge about the effects of the drugs ought to have advised the parents appropriately so that they would give consent with full knowledge of such a possibility of outcome (Cornford, 2008). By taking this unprofessional move and exploiting the ignorance of the parents and the patients about medical issues, he was bound by the law to have become liable to the subsequent disability that Jones experienced.

The physician and the anaesthesian are bound to be liable to the damages caused to the parents and the disable boy. They were trusted with the life of the boy due to the expected knowledge endowment and it was therefore important that they foresee the danger of using sedation. The healthcare center employed the physician and the anaesthesian and this make them to be the agents of the center. In this respect, there was vicarious liability on the healthcare center and a joint liability between the anaesthesian and the physician (Bar, Drobnig, Alpa & European Commission, 2004).

However, the ruling of the judge had to drop the healthcare center from the case since the physician must have acted outside the instructions and duty descriptions by the center. In such a case, the physician and the anaethesian did not work in the interest of their employer. The