Medical Practices Legal and Ethical Issues - Term Paper Example

Medical Practices Legal and Ethical Issues Physicians and other medical practitioners serve in one of the noblest careers since theyare tasked with the responsibility of saving individuals’ lives. As such, patients call on such physicians, owing to their confidence in such professions, the belief that they will professionally and ethically resolve their assorted health challenges. Such patients also possess the belief that these health practitioners may not harm them in any form, through negative ethical aspects such as inattention, irresponsibility, and malicious attitudes. Additionally, though the doctor may ne incapacitated to save the life of some patients, such patients expect the medical practitioners to employ their professional aptitude wholly in their endeavor to safeguard the wellbeing of patients. As such, it is in the interest of the physician to settle on resolving the challenges of the patient. Legal and professional code of conduct mandates the physician to settle on medication to administer to his or patients. Additionally, it is upon such physicians to administer the medication to patients, in their ultimate endeavor to alleviate the sufferings of such patients (Cohen, 2013). However, the professional and the legal codes of conducts allows for the patient’s autonomy. Patients have an entitlement to decide on their treatment modes and communicate with the physician, based on their physical and mental soundness. This ought to be in line with the health practitioners’ professional mode of treatment administration while following the preset professional and legal aspects of such treatments. This should be in response to the best interests of the patients. As such, the physicians ought to investigate carefully the health challenges that the patient may be going through, and endeavor to alleviate the patients’ challenges. Ethical and professional misconduct in the medical field has serious devastating impacts to the subsistence of the patients, as well as the professional development of such physicians (Cohen, 2013). The physicians may also be compelled to undergo through numerous unwarranted legal challenges. In the case involving Dr. Contadina and Joe, the physician appeared to have neglected the professional objectives by failing to examine carefully the health predicament that Joe was going through. It was evident that Joe had his total reliance on the doctor, and could not envisage any malice from Dr. Contadina. As such, Joe followed the instructions of the physician fully without questioning her procedure. In this case, chances of negligence are evident, leading to the serious health complications of Joe’s health and his ultimate demise. However, though there are no chances of malice evident in the case, the negligence emanating from the doctor is equally devastating and compels the doctor to undergo a thorough legal redress and professional implications (Cohen, 2013). Had Dr. Contadina carefully examined Joe’s condition with her professional aptitude initially, his health predicament would have been solved, thereby saving Joe’s life and salvaged her career. Dr. Contadina’s responsibility in Joe’s predicament, though not malicious, fails to adhere to the deontological ethics of medicine. The cases pose a serious dilemma, where Dr. Contadina faces intense pressure to give in and apologize for her actions, thereby giving rise to more challenging predicaments such as legal redress and negative impacts on her career. The health institution also plans to salvage its image, through compelling the doctor into admitting that she perpetrated a professional misconduct that resulted into a fatality. Joe’s family relentlessly seeks for answers, before embarking on legal assistance on their case. The family’s attempt to seek legal redress emanates from for Dr. Contadina’s treatment evidently ignored the beneficence principle. This principle aims at contributing to the welfare of the patients, where the physicians aid the patients in improving their health aspects. The principle also obliges such health practitioners to implement a balance in the healthcare administration in such comportment that it does not harm the patient in any aspect (McLean & Mason, 2003). As such, the law does not consider whether the physician willingly or unwillingly committed the crime. The legal redress bases it decision on such matter from the inflicted harm to the patient. The standard of justice and fairness argues that the doctors’ performance of duties should be impartial, thereby disregarding aspects of prejudice such as race, gender or social class. Though not evident, Dr. Contadina may have had some form of bias to the farmer, based on his social class. Therefore, the physician did not put enough critically consider his ailment as another doctor in the same capability would have done. There is a significant disparity between the professional ethics of medicine and the legal implications (McLean & Mason, 2003). The disparity between the law and the professional ethics appears in that the law considers the act as an illegal malpractice with key comparison of another doctors’ performance of duty under the same situation and capabilities. The law questions: what would another doctor within the same capability have performed, in order to save the life of the patient that the doctor in question failed to accomplish, thereby resulting to the harm of patients? On the other hand, moral principles have a significant implication on ethical objectives (McWay, 2009). As a result, a contravention of such conduct codes may not necessarily have legal implications. However, it may compel the perpetrators into professional challenges. Various bodies within the field of medicine have implemented numerous professional ethics guidelines that physicians and other medical practitioners ought to follow. Such include the American Medical Association (AMA) among others. Contraventions of such ethical codes of conducts may not necessarily be punishable through the legal systems. Conversely, the bodies have installed disciplinary panels that tackle such issues. Joe’s family legally searches for the solution to this dilemma. The family considers that the sudden demise of their relative could not have resulted from an insignificant health issue such as the small cut. As a result, their search for answers is justified and ought to follow the set legal procedures to ascertain the exact cause of their death (McLean & Mason, 2003). They tend to suppose that the death resulted from the physician’s negligence. Therefore, the medical center’s facility compels Dr. Contadina to issue an apology. In the case between Dr. Contadina and Joe’s relations, it is apparent that there is a degree of medical malpractice through the physician’s failure to diagnose the symptoms of the ailment of Joe. Besides, communication barrier may have played a significant role to the dilemma. The patient (Joe) may not have clearly communicated the cause of the cuts and the degree of such cuts. As such, the physician may justify herself through affirmative defense. Joe’s family has to follow various legal processes in order to ascertain that the root of the demise of their kin was through negligence (a serious medical malpractice punishable by both the law and the medical professionals’ bodies). The best evidence of negligence usually emanates from the patient himself (in this case, the patient is deceased). The claimant (in this case the family), ought to accomplish both the liability and the causation, in their endeavor to achieve compensation and allow for the litigation of the doctor. The liability aspect in this case acts to prove that the physician or any other medical practitioner performed the treatment in a comportment that no other professional would have performed in a similar fashion. On the other hand, the causation aspects attempts to establish that the harm has resulted that otherwise would not have resulted based on the probability that the doctor contributed more than half to the causation of the harm (McWay, 2009). However, not all medical errors that inflict harm to the patient thereby putting their lives in danger counts as negligence. The physicians may have a justification in that they attempted all the modes at their disposal while attempting to safeguard the welfare of the patients. Joe’s family ought to approach Dr. Contadina and seek for a written explanation as to the cause of their kin’s demise. The family ought to mull over such responses from the physician and settle on whether to go proceed to seek legal redress on the condition that they feel discontented with the rejoinders. Joe’s medical reports will be critical in the case since it acts as evidence of their claims of negligence (McWay, 2009). On conditions that these records are unavailable, the family ought to request for such records with the aid of a solicitor and create copies since these will be significant in the courtroom. Critical examination of such records will play a key role in the heightening their claim (McLean & Mason, 2003). Following a thorough assessment of such records, the family should present them to an independent medical practitioner of an equal or higher rank than the physician in question. The medical practitioner will then review the records, and thereby create a report on whether negligence of various forms occurred during the course of treatment administration to the patient. The report of the independent doctor will then indicate that negligence occurred (McLean & Mason, 2003). In such instances that negligence occurred, the solicitor will then document a report and present it to the Dr. Contadina’s health center. This serves to inform the hospital that the family seeks for legal proceedings, and they should prepare and avail themselves for legal a challenge. The local barristers will then be compelled to prepare the necessary documents for the progression of legal action. Following the health centers and the patients’ justification and the family’s claims, the doctor and the hospital in question the court is able to ascertain the criminality of the case. Once the court finds the doctor guilty of the claim, the court may revoke the license of the health practitioner, among other punishments (McWay, 2009). Additionally, the court will require that the health center compensates the family owing to the demise of their kin (McLean & Mason, 2003). Physicians are among the medical practitioners tasked with the responsibility of safeguarding the welfare of the patients. The patients have the tendency to put utmost trust to such patients, based on the belief that such physicians may not act in any way against their interests and wellbeing. However, cases of medical malpractices are evident in numerous health institutions, leading to diverse professional and legal predicaments. Such physicians fail to adhere to professional and ethical codes of conducts, thereby significantly jeopardizing the health of their patients. The law provides for patients who undergo harm as a result of negligence to seek for legal redress, and thereby claim compensation owing to such losses. However, losses emanating from administration of treatment of the patients are may not essentially result from negligence. As a result, the law experts and independent medical practitioners ought to ascertain the justification of such negligence. References McLean, S., & Mason, J. (2003). Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare. London: Greenwich Medical Media. Cohen, G. (2013). The globalization of health care: legal and ethical issues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McWay, D. (2009). Legal and ethical aspects of health information management. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning. Read More