Introduction
Defined forces for peaceful coexistence regulate interactions among individuals in a society. Such forces manifests through legal or moral obligations and duties in each particular society. Moral obligations are established through customary practices and enforced through conscience and goodwill while legal obligations and duties are defined by systematic legislative processes and are enforceable by courts of law. Legal obligations are well defined by law and sometimes overlap to include moral obligations in a society. This paper seeks to discuss a case study with legal implications in healthcare. The paper will answer questions on legal aspects of the case.
Summary of the case
A patient, Mr. Ard was sick and under care of a hospital. When his condition worsened, his wife called for attention but there was no immediate response. An attendant only responded after hours and administered medications that did not help the patient. Mrs. Ard again later called for medical attention without immediate success. The patient’s condition worsened and he later succumbed to the sickness. The hospitals records did not indicate any attendance to patients for over an hour on that day. There were later allegations of negligence on the part of the hospital’s medical personnel (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011).
The events
The events in the case involved a patient who was supposed to be under medical care but did not receive the expected services on time. The patient’s wife made necessary efforts to call the hospital’s medical personnel but there were never timely response. This led to the death of the patient (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011).
Why things went wrong
The most unfortunate thing, which forms the basis of the case, was the eventual death of the patient. Comprehensive review and analysis of the case identifies the reason for the death as failure by the medical personnel to timely respond to emergency calls that were made to them. The patient, through his representative, made efforts to alert the hospital of his need for services but there were delayed responses. Further, there are reports that the hospitals personnel did not pay sufficient attention in examining the patient. As a result, there were high chances of poor diagnosis, which could undermine provision of adequate care to the patient. The major reason that led to the death was therefore failure by the hospital’s personnel to provide adequate care and responsibility to the patient (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011).
Relevant legal issues
The relevant legal issues in this case are based on the law of contract and the law of torts. Principle of negligence, as an element of tort, is one of the legal issues identified in the case. Negligence is defined as a breach of care that is owed by one party to another and the breach must lead to a legal damage. The first essential element of negligence is therefore the duty of care by a party. The duty of care must have been breached and the breach must have resulted in a legal damage (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011). Healthcare negligence is defined by existence of a doctor to patient relationship that leads to duty of care, there must also be a breach of the duty of care by the doctor, and the final loss must be attributable to the breach (Johnson, 2007). The case satisfies these elements of negligence (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011).
Another legal principle in the case is the basis of performance of a contract. Once parties have entered into a legally binding contract, they are bound to the express terms as defined by them and implied terms as defined by traditions and the particular profession. Failure by a party to fulfill an obligation leads to legal liability. Such provisions regulate contracts of professional services as explained. One of the obligation of a healthcare personnel or institution is the duty of care to the patient and a subsequent loss from breach is legal (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011; Johnson, 2007).
How the event could have been prevented
Since the death was caused by breach of duty of care by the medical personnel, the appropriate way in which it could have been prevented was through diligence and commitment in service delivery by the healthcare providers. The patient’s attendant ought to have undertaken all necessary examinations on the patient and there should have been readily available attendant for emergencies (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011).
Verdict
A medical officer is expected to act within standards that are generally approved by regulatory bodies. In the case of ‘Khan v Medical Bureau of California’, a physician’s license was revoked on grounds that he could not guarantee hope to a patient who is in need of medical attention. A failure to exercise care on the patient therefore constitute a ground for legal action against a practitioner (Pozgar and Santucci, 2011; Nicholson, 2008).
Conclusion
Common law regulates contracts between persons and provides for liability for breach of contract and for torts. The hospital breached its duty of care to Mr. Ardi leading to tort of negligence. It is therefore legally liable for the patient’s death.
References
Johnson, R., 2007. Trial by fire: Abraham Lincoln and the law. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest
Nicholson, J., 2008. Physician assistant medical practice in the health care workforce: A retrospective study of medical malpractice and safety comparing physician assistants to physicians and advanced practice nurses. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest
Pozgar, G. and Santucci, N., 2011. Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers