ethics 7

4

Malpractices in Healthcare System

Name

College Name

Course Number: Course Name

Instructor’s name

Assignment due date

Explain the case's key legal components, including the issue's nature and applied rules.

The case is about a doctor found responsible for inserting pieces of a screwdriver into a patient’s spine. The patient Arturo accused the doctor of puncturing his spinal cord during surgery which left him paralyzed. Dr. Ricketson testified that the delay was risky for the patient, so he continued the operation without Titanium rods. The appellant-accused several defendants with claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. During the special verdict, the jury found Medtronic not liable for any allegations against it. However, the jury found Dr. Ricketson and HMC to be negligent, and their negligence caused Arturo harm. The jury did not assign Arturo's harm to previous injuries (Idemoto, 2007)

However, the court found that Arturo's previous medical condition accounted for 75% of the damages. The court ended that the HMC jointly caused 25% of the overall damages found by the court. Therefore HMC and Dr. Ricketson were jointly responsible for the damages, and they should embrace the apportionment of fault by the jury, which nullifies the joint accountability except for specific allegations like economic damages as opposed to the action of joint tortfeasors that entails injury or death, some noneconomic damages in actions entailing injury or death where the degree of negligence of joint tortfeasors person is established to be at least 25% (Idemoto, 2007)

The malpractice policy for this issue is whether the doctor was negligent in patient care. For medical malpractice to be sued, the patient must meet specific criteria, which involves proving if the doctor breached the standard of care. For this case, the patient met the criteria because the doctor confessed to injuring the patient's spinal cord. You have to evaluate the standard of care to determine if the doctor went against it (Idemoto, 2007). The standard of care is described as the level of care a doctor would provide in a similar situation. To determine if the doctor went against the standard of care, you have to evaluate the case facts and consider if a rational doctor could have done something contrasting. For example, he said the delay was risky for the patient, so he decided to continue with the surgery without titanium rods. He was concerned that it was not safe for the patient. Instead of waiting for the rod to arrive in ninety minutes, he proceeds and makes an unreasonable decision to insert screwdriver pieces unsuitable to use in the Patient spine. Nevertheless, the jury found the doctor negligent in his care for the patient and that his actions led to the patient's harm. Consequently, it is rational to say that the doctor breached the standard of care.

This case could have a different effect on anyone from a different culture than portrayed one. For instance, an individual from a culture that cherishes independence and freedom could have been furious with the doctor's actions than those from a culture that cherishes submission over control. In addition, this event will likely alter the healthcare user’s perceptions of several cultures towards the healthcare system. After this event, some clients may trust the healthcare system while others may lose trust or doubt the health system (Scott, 2017)

The jury found the doctor negligent and that his negligence was what caused the patient's injury. Therefore the doctor should be answerable for the damage he caused to the patient. Finally, the doctor in this event broke the standard of care and was negligent in the care he provided to the patient. The patient came from a cultural background that does not speak English. The doctor could have been more careful when treating the patient and considered the patient's cultural background. Furthermore, the doctor should be answerable for the damage he has caused and should execute plans that will prevent future liabilities (Scott, 2017)

References

Idemoto, S. K. (2007). Medical Malpractice in Hawai'i: Tort Crisis or Crisis of Medical Errors.  U. Haw. L. Rev.,  30, 167.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uhawlr30&div=8&id=&page=

Scott, P. A. (2017). Ethical principles in healthcare research. Key concepts and issues in nursing ethics (pp. 191-205). Springer, Cham.

http://doras.dcu.ie/19343/1/Ethical_Principles_in_research_editors_PHD_proofs_June_2013.pdf