RN Brewer is putting the lives of the patients in jeopardy and the facility in jeopardy. A major ethical principal that the RN is not promoting is NONMALEFICENCE : duty to do no harm, being intoxicated the RN is not fully aware of what he/she is doing he/she can administrate the wrong medicine to the wrong patient or not be able to react efficiently. At the same time if the LPN does not report this he/she would also be in-compliance with this. As per the NFLPN under STANDARD legal/ethical status, states: 4. Shall take responsible actions in situations where in there is unprofessional conduct by a peer or other health care provider.
Common laws provide a resolution for courts if the similar case is presented in the future, making sure they have the same outcome. An example of a common law case is Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 208 A.2d 193 (Pa1965). In this case, Flagiello was a patient that sued a hospital in Pennsylvania because she hurt herself on hospital property. The hospital said the injury was not related to the original purpose of admission. Her case was dismissed because the common law stated that hospitals, which are charitable institutions, could not be sued for negligence.
There have been many tests to establish the bounds of duty such as Donaghue v Stephenson to more recently the Caparo test which states that for there to be a duty of care the act or omission must be foreseeable, proximate and just, reasonable and fair. The last Caparo test has been included as a matter of public policy, the main focus on this essay is to establish whether courts have the intention of limiting liability for the defendant when establishing duty of care. Many public authorities such as doctors escape liability due to public policy for example in the case of Hill it was held that there was no liability for the police because there was no proximity, this case meant that police could receive immunity of liability based on public policy this is because according to Lord keith the process of trying to prove liability is time consuming and deters the police from completing their main job which is protecting the main public, however it can be argued that police escaping liability may lead to absurdity and injustice on behalf of the claimant, if the police are at fault then they should be made to be liable, we can conclude that courts in this case use public policy to prevent any responsibility towards the defendant, this was further supported by Elguzouli-daf v commissioner of police where no duty of care was owed by the CPS because it was too time consuming, according to Lord Bingham in this case the police should have taken reasonable steps to prevent the crime from happening since they had the necessary means to do so and failing to do so should result in liability. Another reason why the bounds of duty may be a matter of public policy may be to limit floodgates, this is because public authorities are high respected and have specialist expertise therefore the concept of fair just and reasonable limits the liability for police officers, If
Normal accidents do not involve negligence and incompetency. Definitively, normal accidents focus on the failure of subsystems or the system in its entirety, rather than human error (Eisenbeis, Hanks, & Barret, 1999, p.9). Nevertheless, the definition offers little comfort to those families whose loved ones perished. In order to implement corrective measures, the task of assigning accountability and responsibility must be painstakingly done to prevent another Sunset Unlimited disaster. Amtrak, a sizeable and profitable corporation, has both internal and external stakeholders.
Professional liability is being legally responsible for actions, and ensuring "the standard of care" is followed (Finnegan, 2013). Managers and Co-workers are not responsible for anything that the neglecter fall faulty for. Phlebotomist are provided with the needed education and training of blood collection so when an act of neglect occurs it is merely carelessness. It is
Although the contaminated products would not affect all individuals or consumers, this was indeed a huge concern. The levels of contamination were well below the current FDA standards and allegedly would not cause adverse reactions in healthy adults. However, a probability of adverse reactions exists in adults with mediocre immune systems. Consequently, it was my responsibility as the quality control manager to make a decision to pull all of the contaminated products, inform or warn consumers (existing and potential), or extend a refund or replacement policy for contaminated products.
Those employees that smoke have made a conscious decision to do so and to engage in a behavior that is well known to cause health issues, thereby increasing the cost of health care. All conscious action and decisions are not without consequences and Whitney should not have to pay for the transgressions of their employers. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and in Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, at Plaintiff’s cost, with an award of attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of this matter. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Evan D. LeBlanc, #458674 Attorney at Law TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brashear v. Simms, 138 F.Supp.2d 693, 695 (D.Md. 2001) .
Kaplan University Different forms of Patient Consent “The Standard of Care refers to the degree of attentiveness, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise. Failure to meet the standard is negligence, and the person who fails to meet the standard is liable for any damages caused by such negligence” (Standard of Care Law & Legal Definition) (2014). In Sandra’s case the appropriate Standard of Care is determined by her symptoms and mental state of mind. The correct Standard of Care is also taken into consideration in ways that other experts would agree most appropriate in her situation. If something was to happen and it lead to a malpractice lawsuit the lawyer of the physician would want to prove
Whereas by definition, paternalism restricts a person’s right to autonomy, and takes another person’s autonomous right away and makes decision on their behalf, even if it is contrary to the wishes of the patient (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Paternalism with Mrs Jones was not the case, yet with regards to safeguarding her from further harm justice, beneficence and non-malfeasance would have been insuring long term interest. To be deemed competent professionals work within trust guidelines and trust protocols and must treat patients fairly, without discriminating against them; ensuring that the patient is able to make autonomous decisions regarding their own care (NMC
Although they believe that no one should end another person’s life by “giving deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” (Hippocrates, Father of Mother Medicine) they also agree that exceptions will always exist. In such cases, they accept that passive euthanasia is sometimes right because it entails the withholding of a treatment that a patient needs in order to stay alive, surely with the consent of the patient. Thus, their focus on the issue is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care. Doctors should give their best to prevent death, but they should not force treatment upon dying patients just for the sake of their Hippocratic