Health Law and Ethics in This Case,

Health Law and Ethics

In this case, there are a number of ethical issue that are raised therein. The first ethical issue is the fact that the physician tries to convince the mother not to report this particular negligence to the authorities on the strength that it was not child abuse. This is a misconception that it is only child abuse cases that should be reported and not other matters like negligence should be reported even though they led to serious injuries like the bilateral femur fractures that this child suffered. The other issue is that the physician went ahead to treat the child without necessarily calling the day care what could be the likely cause of the injury. This enquiry could have maybe let the day care take extra precaution about the injury and avoid further incidences as such.

The best ethical principle that can be used to address this issue is the principle of Distributive Justice. This states that the society has a duty to the individual in dire need, and each person has a duty to the needy person. This indicates that each person ahs the right to access of basic necessities and there should be practice of equality of persons by all (Ascension Health, 2012a). This was one fundamental principle that was breached in the handling of this patient. There was a neglect of the legal follow-up on the cause of the injury and a presumption was taken that once the source of injury was determined not to be child abuse, there was no need to further interrogate. This was a false premise and a contravention of the principle of distributive justice.

The other principle that was contravened was the principle of informed consent. Here there is need for one to make an informed decision with all the necessary information availed. In this case study, the medication and even the decision to keep quiet about the source of the injury was not done based on information availed and an informed consent from the mother given (Ascension Health, 2012b).

My personal values are a bit contradictory to the principle of informed consent. This is a principle that could make issues worse if applied in a blanket manner and in all circumstances. It could be that by the doctor digging up information about the source of the injury, there could be more psychological problems that he could have exposed the mother to hence more problems. This was why at times it would be better to deal with only the very sensitive information (as the physician in the case study did) and leave the other minor details without bringing them to the fore.

If the patient was handled in another institution, he could have likely been examined and the history of the injury traced from the day care centre. This information could have been looked for and given to the mother before the treatment started.