Ms Symonds Case Concerning Ethics and Law in Health - Essay Example

? Ethics and Law in Health by of the of the Submitted on ________ I. Introduction (75 words) In the case that is going to be presented, which is disturbing as they come, an elderly woman by the name of Ruth Symond is left to her own devices and is neglected both inside and outside of her own home. Having to go to court to file for four different torts, some definitions will be made here in an effort to clearly speak to the injustices she suffered at the hands of incompetent people. II. Definitions (100 words) Here a few definitions that are pertinent to Ms. Symond’s case will be discussed. First, it will be discussed what the teleology and deontology are—followed by the definitions for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and negligence. The teleology of what occurred, or what was the end process, was abuse. The deontology of what occurred, or what was the duty of obligation—were principles that were violated. Assault is defined as a tort of violence against someone. Battery is defined as unlawful physical contact (Staunton & Chiarella, Pp. 25). False imprisonment is being held against one’s will. Negligence is failing to act upon one’s duty of care. III. Theory and Principle (300 words) Ms. Symond’s case is a classic case of elder abuse. According to Green (2003), “Despite growing concern about the problem, most countries have not passed specific elder abuse legislation” (Green, Pp.118). In theory, and in principle, there are so many things wrong with this situation that the list is seemingly endless. Regarding the theory and principles to be set forth, there were so many things wrong with this scenario. The patient’s rights were violated in many ways, which is the main principle or theory that, based on a moral model, would have been inexcusable had this happened in real life in any type of care setting—whether it be in the home, in the hospital, or in a nursing home. Allison left no written directives with her organization. According to Breen et al. (2010), “In all instances…verbal instructions must be confirmed in writing within 24 hours or as soon as is practicable” (Breen & Plueckhahn, Pp.288). Using the moral model, one sees that the various ethical dilemmas that are involved in this entire schema which was set up to analyse. Of course, it is not practical that one nurse should have had to deal with a woman who was a bit unstable as Ms. Symond. However, that was no excuse to leave the woman’s home, leaving her basically helpless, while she (the new nurse, Allison) went to lunch and expected someone else (a neighbour) to take care of poor Ms. Symond. In any case, based upon the moral model, Ms. Symond was done an utter injustice. In principle, everyone who can be blamed for her negligence should be sued with every last stripe of the law that applies to her situation. She was a victim of elder abuse, and no one should have to weather such a horrible experience—as it stands (Skene, Pp. 123). IV. Torts (900 words) Regarding torts, first of all, the nurse named Allison should be charged with neglect due to her lack of duty of care on the part of Ruth, the patient. She should not have forced any kind of treatment on Ruth—even if she thought it was best for her to do a compression dressing. Instead, Allison should have followed Ruth’s directives or wishes unless she did not have the power of attorney. It was very careless of Allison to simply tell Ruth that she would leave her walker out in the hallway till someone came back around lunchtime—a neighbour, no less—to check up on her. That nurse was so careless that she should be stripped of her licensure due to that foul-up. As a result, when trying to go to the bathroom, Ruth slipped and received a laceration—which is a deep cut—on her head. Not only this, but Ruth was also attended to by careless paramedics who didn’t transfer her over to the appropriate care unit until she was discovered some time later, not having been attended to yet. Both on the parts of Allison and the paramedics, they really missed the boat—or screwed up—in terms of giving Ms. Symond the appropriate care that she needed. In this case, the duty of care Ms. Symond received from both the nurse and the paramedics was considered non-delegable because no one else could have possibly been responsible for this tragedy that occurred because Ms. Symond was almost entirely completely dependent upon these people for her care. Forrester, Griffiths, & Griffiths (2010) state, “A ‘special relationship giving rise to the existence of a non-delegable duty of care is said to exist between the [care-giving organization] and the patient… the patient [being] specially dependent or vulnerable…” (Forrester & Griffiths, Pp.131). Ms. Symond, for whatever reason, might not be able to appear in court to plead her case against the nurse and the paramedics. However, she may give a statutory declaration instead. According to Forrester & Griffiths (2010), “[A statutory declaration] has the same legal effect as a statement made in court under oath” (Forrester & Griffiths, Pp.34). Ms. Symond can therefore testify to the fact that she was indeed neglected horribly—and that both the nurse, Allison, and the attending paramedics, were both in breach of their duty of care to herself as the patient. Ms. Symond has the right to sue in criminal court as well as civil court (Johnstone, Pp. 98). In civil court she might be able to sue for punitive damages if a criminal trial does not yield favourable results for her (McIlwraith, Pp. 108). Most likely there would be a jury trial. According to Balkin & Davis (2004), if there is a “…finding of negligence, the judge must allow the case to go to the jury, for to rule otherwise would be to usurp the legitimate function of the jury” (Balkin & Davis, Pp. 289). With regard to the various torts, battery would have been when Ruth slammed her head into the bathroom sink—which she really couldn’t avoid but it happened anyway due to Allison’s negligence. With regard to assault, technically the way that Ruth was handled by Allison when she didn’t want to comply was a form of assault because she basically forced her against her will to receive care that she didn’t want. Those first two torts might be more difficult to prove in a court of law than these latter two torts, however, which are painfully obvious: false imprisonment and negligence (Sanders, Pp. 16-26). It has already been explained how Allison and the paramedics were both guilty of negligence, because they had basically not handled their responsibilities, since in Ms. Symond’s case, there was a non-delegable duty of care that was owed to her. Ms. Symond, therefore, could not only sue Allison and the paramedics, but also the companies that hired those people because organizations are also responsible for non-delegable duties of care. Last, but not least, Ruth Symond was falsely imprisoned by being left alone in her house with her walker left in the hallway so she had no access to get to the bathroom. Essentially she was left to her own devices. Allison trying to “delegate” her duty of care to the neighbour, therefore—when it was a non-delegable duty of care—makes her look extremely bad as a caregiver, and in fact, that is very negative. There is nothing professional about that sort of behaviour and she should at least lose her job if not her licence, as well as be fined or do community service or jail time for such infractions (Mappes & De Grazia, Pp. 67). Additionally, the paramedics who took an extended lunch break and forgot all about Ms. Symond may not only be sued, but the hospital or Emergency Medical Technician service that they work for might invariably be sued for their incompetence and negligence (Kerridge & Lowe, Pp. 110). An argument might also be made that, invariably, the paramedics also subjected Ms. Symond to false imprisonment by not handing her over to the proper medical personnel immediately after she was given to them to be taken care of—which makes their non-delegable duty of care breached as well, making those paramedics equally if not more negligible as Allison the nurse (Eburn, Pp. 78). In any event, Ms. Symond had every right to complain because of the four torts that she could bring against both Allison the incompetent nurse as well as the equally incompetent paramedics/EMT staffers. Hopefully Ruth will get justice. V. Conclusion (125 words) No elderly person should have to suffer the four different torts that Ms. Symond suffered at the hands of incompetent and negligent carers. Indeed, it was an ultimate lack of concern that basically is the underlying cause of all of the problems set forth in this case study scenario. Because these people didn’t do their jobs, Ms. Symond not only suffered physically, but probably emotionally as well. She didn’t have anyone there to help her when she was neglected; therefore, she should receive her day in court in order to face the criminal acts that were committed. Her carers should go on trial and face the music for the unspeakable crimes they committed against her. Without a doubt, the torts she suffered weren’t in vain. REFERENCES Balkin, R., & Davis, J. (2004). Law of torts (3rd Ed.). Sydney, NSW: Butterworths. Breen, K., Cordner, S., Thomson, Colin J., & Pleuckhahn V. (2010). Good medical practice: professionalism, ethics, and law. UK: Cambridge University Press. Elsevier. Forrester, K., & Griffiths, D. (2010). Essentials of law for health professionals. Marrickville, NSW: Elsevier. Forrester, K., Griffiths, F., & Griffiths, D. (2010). Essentials of law for medical practitioners. Australia. Green, B.L. (2003). Trauma interventions in war and peace. US: Springer. BIBLIOGRAPHY Balkin, R., & Davis, J. (2004). Law of torts (3rd Ed.). Sydney, NSW: Butterworths. Bandman, E., & Bandman, B. (2002). Nursing ethics through the lifespan (4th Ed.) Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th Ed.). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Breen, K., Plueckhahn, V., & Cordner, S. (1997). Ethics, law and medical practice. Sydney. NSW: Allen & Unwin. Davis, A., & Aroskar, M. (1997). Ethical dilemmas and nursing practices (4th Ed.) Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. Eburn, M., (2005). Emergency Law; rights, liabilities and duties of emergency workers and volunteers. (2nd Ed.). Sydney: Federation Press. Johnstone, M. (2004). Bioethics: A nursing perspective (4th Ed.). Sydney, NSW: Churchill Livingstone. Kerridge, I., Lowe, M., & Stewart, C. (2009). Ethics and Law for the Health Professions (3rd Ed.) Sydney: Federation Press. Mappes, T., & De Grazia, D. (2006). Biomedical ethics (6th Ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. Mason, J K. & Laurie, G.T. (2005). Mason & McCall Smith's law and medical ethics (7th Ed.). London, UK: Butterworths. McIlwraith, J.F. (2006). Health care & the law. (4th Ed.). Rozelle, N.S.W.: Thomson Legal and Regulatory. Preston, N. (2007). Understanding ethics. (3rd Ed.).  Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press. Sanders, M. J. (2005). Paramedic Textbook (3rd Ed.). Missouri: Elsevier Mosby. Skene, L. (2004). Law and medical practice: rights, duties, claims and defences (2nd Ed.). Sydney, NSW: Butterworths. Staunton, P., & Chiarella, M. (2007). Nursing and the law (6th Ed.). Marrickville, N.S.W: Elsevier. Read More