Healthcare Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration

Healthcare Legal

Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration

Please answer the question below:

Give and support two arguments for and two arguments against Euthanasia. (Note: Pages 430 to 433 in Pozgar's textbook will provide some background on the issue).

In modern medical practice the meaning of euthanasia is an action that assists dying in someone who has requested it and countries such as Belgium, where it is a legal practice, require that the person must be older than 18 years, be in unbearable physical or psychological pain that is medically permanent and without hope of recovery, the request must be made by his or her own self-will, and the person must have thought about it and made the request several times (Gulsah, Gursel, & Nazan, 2007). These requirements by themselves imply the kinds of arguments that can be made for the practice.

The obvious argument for euthanasia is to alleviate physical pain. There are some conditions that are so painful that euthanasia can be a humane choice to ending someone's suffering. However, there are some cases in which the pain might be temporary and this could serve as an argument against the practice; especially in cases in which it is unknown if the patient can recover. The Belgium definition requires that the individual ask several times and it must be on their own self-will. However, there are also pain medications that can dull even the most severe pains if there is any chance of recovery. Thus, pain can be used as both an argument for and against euthanasia.

Another line of thought can involve self-determination. If an individual choses to end their own life then this could be an expression of their own personal liberty. If a person is truly free then they should be able to make this choice for themselves. However, some religious beliefs and certain ideologies perceive euthanasia in a negative fashion and believe there is sanctity to life. They believe that life is to be protected either in all forms or just the human form. Therefore, these beliefs can trump the beliefs in personal liberty.

QUESTION

Describe the meaning of the legal doctrine respondeat superior. Does this doctrine apply to independent contractors? Explain your answer.

The legal doctrine respondeat superior literally translates let the master answer. Using this doctrine the courts may hold a parent organization financially responsible for one of the employee's actions if the employee was acting within the scope of their job. Courts have traditionally relied on the doctrine of respondeat superior to impose liability on an employer when another party suffered injuries caused by the actions of its employees; if the employee's act is negligent or wrongful and causes injury, liability is placed upon the employer and an injured third party may sue both the employer and the employee (Freeman, 2004)

Next please research the 2 cases below and answers the questions as shown below:

CASES (Federal Case)

1. Gonzales v. Carhart (Federal Case)

Subject: the respondents were LeRoy Carhart, William G. Fitzhugh, William H. Knorr, and Jill L. Vibhakar, doctors who perform second-trimester abortions. These doctors filed their complaint against the Attorney General of the United States in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. They challenged the constitutionality of the Act and sought a permanent injunction against its enforcement. Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805 (2004). In 2004, after a two-week trial, the District Court granted a permanent injunction that prohibited the Attorney General from enforcing the Act in all cases but those in which there was no dispute that the fetus was viable and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed (Bostrom, 2007).

Facts: Statement of Issues: The court found that there is "uncertainty in the medical community over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health

Rule of Law: The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling,"

Application: Doctors are allowed to perform the procedure if they feel it is in the best interest of the patients health.

Conclusion: Congress does not have the authority to determine what is best for a woman's body; especially in medical areas that are uncertain.

Other Opinions: The New England Journal of Medicine criticized the intrusion of politicians into medical decision-making, writing:

Until this opinion, the Court recognized the importance of not interfering with medical judgments made by physicians to protect a patient's interest. For the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment

2. Cobbs v.Grant (California Case)

Subject: COBBS v. GRANT

Name of the case, the court of jurisdiction, the justice writing the opinion and the court the case was appealed from. Following a reversal by the court of appeal, the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Mosk, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict that Dr. Grant had been negligent in deciding to operate or in performing the surgery (Novack, 1973)

Facts: What is the major set of facts of the case?

Ralph Cobbs, troubled by a duodenal ulcer, consulted his family physician, Dr. Jerome Sands, who concluded surgery was indicated. Dr. Sands discussed the prospective surgery with Mr. Cobbs and advised him in general terms of the risks of undergoing a general anesthetic (Novack, 1973). Dr. Dudley P. Grant, a surgeon, was called in and concurred in the diagnosis, but failed to disclose any of the risks inherent in the surgery. Cobbs consented to the operation. During the operation, Cobbs' spleen was apparently injured, necessitating its removal in a second operation. Thereafter, Cobbs developed a gastric ulcer and, in a third operation,50% of his stomach was removed.

Statement of the Issue(s): The primary issue in this case is what constitutes informed consent. The doctors have the responsibility to inform their patients of the risks that they face with different treatment options and the risks that are inherently involved with each of the options.