Ethical and Legal Studies Major Issues - Case Study Example

Ethical and Legal Studies of the appears here] of the appears here] This analytical essay presents a study related to ethical and legal studies. The bibliography appends twelve sources in Harvard format. Outline I. Introduction II. Ethical Issues III. Legal Issues IV. Outcomes V. Conclusion Introduction Regardless of the most excellent efforts to stay in good physical shape, intermittent problems with an individual's healthiness are an inescapable part of life. At the same time as many of these injuries or sickness will go by without problem even if they remain untreated, every person will more or less unavoidably face the infrequent health problem that demands attention. For this one needs to go to the doctor and that too a doctor who complies with medical ethics (. Medical ethics can be defined as that part of applied ethics which encompasses the study of morals and values as well as judgments that can be applied to the field of medicine. Medical ethics is the regulation of assessing the intrinsic worth, hazards, and societal distress of actions in the field of medicine. Many methods have recently been aroused in order to assist in appraising the ethics of a circumstance (Healthcare in America, p.1). These methods tend to introduce principles that should be thought about in the process of making a decision. Principles of this sort are not intended to give counters about the ways in which a health care provider can or should handle a condition, and they will time and again extend beyond or disagree with each other, for example independence and beneficence conflict if a patient declines a life-saving transfusion of blood. These moralities are anticipated as guiding principles as to what has to be taken into consideration for particular issue or situation (Medical Ethics-II, 2007). Bioethicists frequently refer to the four indispensable doctrines of health care ethics when assessing the intrinsic worth and difficulties of medical dealings. In an ideal world, for a medical practice to be well thought-out as "ethical", it must revere all four of these ideologies, which are named autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence.Autonomy is a principle that "Requires that the patient have autonomy of thought, intention, and action when making decisions regarding health care procedures. Therefore, the decision-making process must be free of coercion or coaxing.In order for a patient to make a fully informed decision, she/he must understand all risks and benefits of the procedure and the likelihood of success" (What are the Basic Principles of Medical Ethics, 2007). Justice is the principle that puts forward the ideas that the troubles and benefits of fresh or investigational conducts must be disseminated evenly amongst all groups in society. Justice necessitates that procedures espouse the fortitude of the current laws and are reasonable and available to all the people that are involved in the procedure. The health care provider must reflect on four chief areas when estimating evenhandedness: just distribution of inadequate wherewithal, contending requirements, rights and compulsions, and possible conflicts with conventional legislation.Beneficence is a principle that requires that the process be supplied with the intention of doing well for the patient concerned. It stresses that health care providers build up and preserve skills and information, repeatedly bring up to date guidance, deem individual conditions of all patients, and make every effort for net benefit. Non-maleficence on the other hand requires that a course of action does not hurt the patient concerned or other people living in the society. Sterility specialists function under the supposition that they are doing no damage or in any case diminishing harm by tailing the better good. On the other hand, for the reason that assistive reproductive technologies have restricted achievement rates undecided general results, the emotional condition of the patient might get affected in a rather negative manner. In a number of cases, it is not easy for doctors to productively apply the do no damage principle. Another very important principle is that of confidentiality. As it is said, "Confidentiality is commonly applied to conversations between doctors and patients. This concept is commonly known as patient-physician privilege. Legal protections prevent physicians from revealing their discussions with patients, even under oath in court. Confidentiality is challenged in cases such as the diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease in a patient who refuses to reveal the diagnosis to a spouse, or in the termination of a pregnancy in an underage patient, without the knowledge of the patient's parents" (Medical Ethics, p.1). Poor health can endanger the capability of a person to protect his legal rights. Conservation of those rights has need of advance judgment and preparation. Unexpected illness can cause intense weakness and bewilderment; at the same time as chronic illness can have an effect on the capacity to reflect unmistakably, which makes a person defenseless and perchance guides him to the indisposed forfeit of power. Carrying out private or business associations, making requirements well-known, and confirming that those wishes are cherished might possibly be impracticable for a person who is bodily or mentally weakened. Nonetheless, adults no matter what age they are can make sure that they defend themselves in opposition to losing command over their lives, and such steps are particularly significant for elder people. Physician as well as other health care providers use medicinal and methodical information in conjunction with clinical conclusion and know-how to make available eminent healthcare to keep a person operating and self-governing for as long as achievable. On the other hand, in some circumstances, providing the most excellent care necessitates choosing amid contradictory tasks, standards, and ethics. For instance, it may not be likely to make available both protection and self-government for an individual who has severe mental problems. Ethical Issues The case under consideration is that of Mrs. Ann Teak. After being treated for oral cancer, she gets referred to a private cosmetic surgeon by the name of Dr DeKay for reconstructive surgery. The doctor informs her of the procedure and claims that there are no risks as such except for a minor post-operative infection. She tells him about her own knowledge and asks about loss of oral sensation. He laughs it off and after the surgery Mrs. Teak looses her oral sensation. She can not eat, chew or even differentiate between hot and cold because of the loss of hypoglossal nerves that are damaged. It is believed that there is nearly an eight percent risk of such damage in the previously mentioned procedure. Dr. DeKay was not well informed about the guidelines related to the risk of such loss because of the fact that he does not keep himself updated by reading magazines claiming to be an authority figure in his field. Mrs Teak has now carried out legal action for carelessness, maintaining that had she known of this risk she would not have had the procedure at this particular time. Now the ethical dilemma that rises here is that the patient was not informed about ALL the risks that were involved in the conduct of the operation. As mentioned previously, it is necessary or in other words it is the responsibility of the doctor to inform the patient of all the risks involved in the carrying out of the procedure (Ethical Decision Making, 1993). It is necessary for the doctor to tell the patient about the risks involved in the procedure so that the patient might then make up his mind as to go on with the procedure or not. As it is said, "A major issue confronting physicians in everyday clinical practice is the extent to which they have a duty to discuss CAM therapies with their patients. In the US, as part of the legal and ethical obligation of informed consent, physicians have a duty to disclose and discuss reasonable and feasible treatment alternatives, together with the risks and benefits of each option" (Cohen, 2004). In the case being discussed, the doctor had to take in what is known as risk management. Risk management is expansive in range. According to Guido, risk management is a course of action that classifies, investigates, and takes care of probable vulnerability in a restricted practice setting (Guido, 1997). The purpose of risk management is to classify and do away with probable hazards before somebody is debilitated or put out of action, and to expand and assess policies and procedures that make available guiding principle for the establishment and straight practice. These actions are, certainly, obliging in protecting an establishment from lawful legal responsibility and possible financial catastrophe but more significantly, they serve to protect the public as well as healthcare personnel. The ethical reliability of the risk management procedure and the individuals drawn in are vital. Integrity is generally defined as a condition of being whole. Moral integrity takes in a consistency and uniformity contained by a set of ethical doctrines and obligations so that these main beliefs and assurances are maintained for the right reasons, even when confronted (McFall, 1986). Ethical principles and intrinsic worth that have to be part of a risk management process consist of admiration for the previously mentioned principles that are autonomy (freewill), non-maleficence (staying away from doing harm), beneficence (carrying out procedures that are in the best interest of the patient), impartiality (fairness), veracity (straightforwardness, sincerity), discretion, and dependability. Using ethical principles and merits to uphold individual and institutional honor is a means of promoting well-being between the patient and the doctor and this also protects the doctor and the establishment from legal procedures. The standard of veracity necessitates fastidious conversation with respect to risk management because of its connection with the responsibility to reveal. It is imperative here to give emphasis to the fact that this argument pertains to the ethics of genuineness and revelation and that advice should be sought for individual conditions. When all's said and done, veracity, or honesty, is based on the standard of reverence for others, and it is obvious that obedience to the set of laws of veracity is indispensable in nurturing belief. Being untruthful and insufficient revelation undoubtedly infringe respect for others and obstruct a trusting association. On the other hand, veracity, like knowledgeable approval, is a notion that is not supreme because of its intrinsic temperament: it deals with information, and the connotation and capacity of information can be hard to conclude. Legitimate inquiries are regularly asked about the suitable amount and feature of information to be revealed to individuals or perhaps even the public-at-large in any specified condition. At the same time as the purpose is not to be misleading, but to a certain extent to steer clear of upsetting others, any preservation of information may be supposed as going against a responsibility to reveal. Legal counseling is recommended when such questions come to pass, particularly when risks are predictable. Legal Issues The patient here can make a claim against the doctor. The claim can be of carelessness and negligence on the part of the doctor. Medical malpractice or medical negligence takes place when a doctor or other healthcare provider contravenes his or her responsibility to carry out treatment to a patient in harmony with the "standard of care". The "standard of care" is such which requires that a healthcare provider implements sufficient skill, comprehension and care customarily possessed and exercised by further members of the line of work acting under analogous conditions and state of affairs. Just like any other individual injury case, the damages which can be recovered in a medical unprofessional conduct case can be placed into two classifications namely special damages and general damages. Special damages that are also known as economic damages are the price of medicinal care, the expenditure of particular medical devices, costs the claimant will acquire in an order to carry on normal function, the loss of prospect wages, and other expenses/losses that were not expected or informed about. General Damages or non-economic damages are those that are the reimbursement to the claimant for the ache, distress, defacement, discomfiture, loss of gratification of life, and so on (California Medical Malpractice Lawyers, 2007). Plaintiffs in medical negligence cases necessitate to take into service expert witnesses to state under oath on the issues that take into consideration certain aspects that are related to the "standard of care", the doctor's violation of that standard, the fundamental association between the carelessness and the damages caused as well as the cost of the prospect care for the injuries that have been caused by the negligence and any loss of earnings over the duration of life of the plaintiff which is the person making the claim against negligence. It is believed that, "at some hospitals, 18%-36% of patients may suffer harm from a medical mistake that causes injury or death. Injuries of complications resulting from medical malpractice can occur anywhere medical care and treatment are provided, even your own home. Medical malpractice occurs when a negligent act or omission by a doctor or other medical professional results in damage or harm to a patient. Negligence by a medical professional could include an error in a diagnosis, treatment, or illness management. If such negligence results in injury to a patient, a case could arise against the doctor if his or her actions deviated from generally accepted standards of practice" (Medical Malpractice Info Center, 2007). Medical malpractice laws have been formulated so as to ensure the well being of the patients. A person or a patient who has suffered from the hands of a doctor or a health care organization can file a case related to clinical negligence if they have proof of an unacceptable medical care act which has caused physical or psychological injury (Ross, 2001). Before being sentenced The doctor or hospital has three months so as to carry out an investigation and then answer the claims of negligence that have been made against him in the Letter of Claim. In order to justify themselves and their actions they have to provide enough reasons (Making a complaint: Clinical Negligence, 2007). Outcomes In my opinion the doctor should be charged to pay for all the future costs of medical care for the patient because the damage that has been caused is both special and general in nature and in both the cases the doctor has to pay for the damage caused. Conclusion In the light of the above discussion we can hereby culminate that a number of ethical and legal issues related to healthcare exist and any doctor who is found to be guilty should pay the price for his or her negligence. Bibliography California Medical Malpractice Lawyers. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.bestattorney.com/medical_malpractice.html Cohen, M. Legal and Ethical Issues in Complementary Medicine. The Medical Journal of Australia. 2004. Pp.1. Ethical Decision Making for Healthcare Executives. (1993). American College of Healthcare Executives. 1993. Pp.1. Guido, G. W. (1997). Legal issues in nursing. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange. Healthcare in America. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.123helpme.com/preview.aspid=26976 Making a Complaint: Clinical Negligence. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Resourcessupport/Practicalissues/Financiallegalissues/Makingacomplaint McFall, L. (1986). Integrity. Ethics. 1986. Pp. 5. Medical Ethics. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Values_in_medical_ethics Medical Ethics- II. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Health_science/Medical_ethics.shtml Medical Malpractice Info Center. (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.flmedicalmalpractice.com/ Ross, K. (2001). Legal Issues: Negligence is Key. ChiroBusiness. February, 2001. Pp.1. What are the Basic Principles of Medical Ethics (2007). Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from: http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/EthicVoc.htm Read More