Healthcare systems and policy frameworks

Determination of Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Canterbury vs. Spence

Canterbury filed a lawsuit against Spence in the United States. In this lawsuit, Canterbury alleged that Dr. Spence had shown negligence when performing laminectomy on Canterbury and failed to inform him fully about the risks involved in the surgery. In addition, the lawsuit argued that Dr. Spence had negligent as he allowed Canterbury to remain unattended to following his surgery. The doctor failed to offer a nurse at the time of Canterbury's fall. In fact, the lawsuit alleged that the Washington Hospital Center failed to erect a rail on the side of its beds. The lawsuit claimed damages including extensive suffering and pain, loss of earnings and medical expenses.

After years of pretrial motions and discovery, a trial was conducted. After the presentation of evidence by Canterbury's lawyers, the defendant opted for a directed verdict. The trial judge granted the motions, arguing that Canterbury had not produced any medical evidence illustrating that Dr. Spence had been negligent in performing the laminectomy and diagnosing Canterbury's malady. According to the court, there was no proof that the doctor's treatment should have been responsible for Canterbury's disabilities. With the lack of evidence to show the negligence post-surgery care, a lack of medical testimony to demonstrate casualty precluded the submission of this case against Dr. Spence to the jury. The judge never considered whether Dr. Spence was obliged to disclose potential risks of the surgery to his client of his parents before the surgery. This triggered Canterbury to bring a medical malpractice action against the hospital and Dr. Spence in the federal courts. After the hospital and Dr. Spence moved for directed verdicts. The court ruled that Canterbury had failed to generate possible proof of negligence. As a result, Canterbury sought an appeal to the court of appeals.

2. U.S. Supreme Court Abortion in Planned Parenthood v Casey and articulated alteration of abortion regulation Roe v. Wade

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case where the constitutionality pertaining to various Pennsylvania State laws about abortion were challenged. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the constitutional right to conduct an abortion and changed the standards used to analyze restrictions of this right. This led to the invalidation of one law while the other was upheld.

In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court challenged the Texas statute, which made it a crime to conduct an abortion unless the life of a woman was at stake. "Jane Roe," a single woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy legally and safely had filed the case. In support of Roe, the court ended up striking down the Texas Law. In the court's ruling, for the first time it recognized that the legal right to privacy is wide enough to incorporate a woman's choice whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. Since them, Roe is publicly recognized as a case, which legalized abortion nationwide.

During the judgment, almost all states outlawed abortion apart from saving a woman's life and for limited reasons like preserving the health of a woman or instance like fetal anomaly, incest, or rape. According to Roe, these laws were unconstitutional, leading to safer abortion services, and easily accessible to women nationwide. The court's decision set a legal precedent, which affected over thirty subsequent cases of the Supreme Court connected to abortion access restrictions.

In Roe vs. Wade case, the Supreme Court established that a woman's right to choose whether t become a parent or not merits the greatest measure of constitutional protection. In addition, the court found that the right to privacy is not absolute and states have valid interests in protecting potential health and maternal health. According to the Supreme Court of the U.S., interests of states in protecting maternal health will only be compelling in the second trimester of pregnancy. Similarly, states' interests in potential life will only are compelling when there is a viable possibility for the sustained survival of a fetus outside the womb. Therefore, states may only prohibit abortion after viability except when it is vital to protect the health or life of a woman.

3. Origin of the Professional Standard of Care

Medical professionals have been the key engine for the development of the Professional Standard of Care. After the Second World War, massive funding of biomedical studies in academic healthcare centers and increased third party payments greatly improved the prestige and power of medical specialists. Medical professionals concomitantly developed an interest in the quality of medical practice. The professionals specifically wanted to sustain control over the definition of content and quality of medical care. Notably, in the course of this period, medical professionals were more willing to offer testimonies to plaintiffs in cases of medical malpractices. This made the medical liability a vital phenomenon in the U.S. medicine arena.

The development of the Professional Standard of Care took its toll in the 1980s. Medical specialists associations, voluntary healthcare organizations, and specialty societies become engaged in developing healthcare standards in an increasingly rigorous trend. By the closure of 1980s, the American Medical Association (AMA) in collaboration with medical specialty societies initiated a major project. It signaled the signing of Professional Standard of Care by the organized medical profession. Later, the American Medical Association announced that the American medical specialty and American medical profession societies must increase their participation in standard setting.

Two key Evidentiary Evidence of the Standard

The Professional Standard of Care is Evidentiary evidenced in the following cases. First, the Helling v. Carey case led to a worrisome precedent for cases of medical malpractice. Essentially, the court ruled that the physician was liable although the traditional practice at the time had been followed. The court cited the T.J. Hooper and referenced Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' decision in 1903, which stated that what should be done is evidence of what was to be done, but all must be affixed on a Professional Standard of Care. The two cases legally established demonstrated that while immense weight is granted to traditional practices regarding Professional Standard of Care, custom does not determine negligence. Essentially, the two cases indicated that a custom medical practice was not sufficient and that some things were not to be standard although they are reasonable for physicians to practice.