- HS 101 M1 Assignment A Case Study Analysis.
Navigating Legal and Ethical Standards in Healthcare: A Case Study Analysis
Healthcare professionals don’t just act in the interest of the patients; they are also challenged by the legal and ethical codes that determine their obligations (Doherty, 2020). The case of Good Samaritan Home features how problematic it is on the off chance that it is undoubtedly feasible to satisfy these standards in real life and how this, in turn, makes even professional healthcare laborers inclined to make wrong decisions. This assignment attempts to investigate the act of intentional torts, negligence, and respondeat superior doctrine, as well as to give the evidential approaches and the decreased malpractice claims in health care facilities.
Intentional Torts in Healthcare
The most generally seen example of intentional torts is when an individual deliberately hurts another. In healthcare settings, several intentional torts can occur: In healthcare settings, several intentional torts can happen:
Assault:
Asphyxiation entails the viewpoint on threat and the chance of harmful or offensive contact by an offensive other, producing anxiety and fear. For example, a medical caretaker who could give medication involuntarily to the patient would place themselves under the scrutiny of abuse in healthcare (Kaldjian, 2024).
Battery:
Battery is committed in the case of foreseeable and unconsented physical contact that entails intimidation or injury of others. A given example is when a clinician recommends medicine without appropriate permission or the assigned authority, which is the act of battery.
False Imprisonment:
Illegal confinement is proposed to be the situation where one’s chance of advancement is kept independent of lawfulness. In a climate of healthcare, this can be finished by keeping a patient in a room against their wish without being determined to accompany essentially reason.
Defamation:
Defamation by spewing out false statements, which ads among many individuals. There are several sharp ways where the specialist will treat their patients, and if this harms them, the best way to record a complaint about them is by slandering (verbally communicated defamation) or libeling (created defamation) them to another colleague or one of their patients.
Potential Intentional Torts in the Good Samaritan Case
The Good Samaritan Ward Nursing Officers could also have committed several intentional torts against the patients. As an example, if they trap a patient without necessary authorization or treat somebody against their will, these professionals could have legal outcomes from battery and false imprisonment (Hodge and Hubbard, 2020).
Nevertheless, assuming someone indulges in such demeaning practices as spreading false bits of tattle about his colleague or patients, they may be denounced under the defamation offense. It is not just the battery and false imprisonment that is the chance of the intentional torts in the Good Samaritan case, but also the other issues of the cases.
Defamation is another crucial misdeed that could happen because of an intentional business act. In any case, it is an ethical issue where, on the off chance that the nursing aides put down a colleague or tarnish the reputation of an occupant for wrong reasons, the outcome could be reputational injury and defamation. The trust dilemma could be demolished in the fragile healthcare institution, affecting patient care and staff morale.
HS 101 M1 Assignment A Case Study Analysis
Similarly, intentional insult of emotional distress (IIED) is also a misdeed that could be tracked down in this case (Arora, 2022). This lawsuit shall equally apply to the nursing aides who have repeatedly behaved in an outrageous manner, leading to severe emotional distress for the occupants and colleagues.
In this case, the nursing aides could also be anticipated to take liability regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress. For example, determining that a patient has been threatened verbally or mental anguish through malicious intimidation tactics would satisfy the criteria for emotional distress. It is crucial to address these intentional torts from medical staff to enable areas of solidarity for a cognizant healthcare climate and to be accountable for the misconduct of these medical caretakers, specialists, or pharmacists (Mahyut et al., 2023).
Respondeat Superior and Negligence
The legal idea of respondeat superior has implications for managers as they are vicariously liable for the acts of their representatives performed at work (Luskin, 2020). Ultimately, assuming the nursing aides were indeed involved in the case of the Good Samaritan, the facility would be in charge of their supervision. Negligence comprises four parts: obligation/obligation, breakchemicalcausationmreparationcasespertaintodefinarialliabilitiesrelatedtocompensation.
The chance of obligation involves healthcare laborers delivering a sanctioned standard of care to the patients. Unduty satisfaction happens if this standard of care is not met, leading to harm or injury. Causation shows here that infringement of obligation judgment essentially amounts to harm caused to the patient, whereas damages calculate the degree of harm or injury.
The idea of Respondent superior is the foundation of the Good Samaritan case applied to the facility where its laborers play a significant role in the work. In particular, nursing aids are generally necessary. This standard, in turn, addresses the obligation of managers to give adequate supervision and training to their staff, safeguarding individuals against harm from other parties (Van Loo, 2020).
Accordingly, the institution is liable for the patient’s behavior and how the nursing aids will study the patient based on this accountability. The public authority support assistants’ unprofessional lead in “Good Samaritan” is manifested by the infringement of obligation because of their disregard for care. The disregard of patients, rash medication administration, and subpar treatment as compared to the one expected in healthcare facilities recommend that the trauma local area personnel act contrary to the standard of care utilized in the healthcare industry.
This issue, derogating the obligation, coincided with the injuries sustained by individuals being alluded to, encompassing the part of causation. A term of one negligence is seen in this case,e. It indicates that better supervision and adherence to professional standards should be provided so that a superior healthcare facility is available (Shenoy et al., 2021).
Is the Good Samaritan Case an Example of Negligence?
Indeed, the Good Samaritan case states the doctrine of blameworthy acts. By not adhering to the standards and care guidelines appropriately, the nursing aides caused damage to the inhabitants. They did several unacceptable maneuvers, for example, taking medications without a fix and inadvertently neglecting the patients, which were hatred of their obligation of care and led to results that were vulnerable to deterioration.
Ethical Approaches and Decision-Making
Morals matter as much as actions and conceptual cycles because they are around individual decision-making, especially in medical fields where moral challenges are regular (Doherty, 2020). In the Good Samaritan case, pertinent ethical principles can be utilized to decide what wise action to take, with insights from the nursing aides that could be better. Using another ethical approach, for example, an uprightness-based approach, which rotates around cultivating highminded qualities and character traits, is another way ethicality can be reflected in business.
In this framework, individuals, keeping that in mind, attempt to reside and act by the principles of compliance with moral ideals, for example, genuineness, trustworthiness, and compassion. In the quality of Good Samaritan Home, the aptitude and hard-working attitude of human beings should be taken into account.
While addressing the disturbing nature of nursing aides’ acts, one could satisfy these excellencies and act accordingly. The main will be sincerity and integrity, for the above is the ethos with which the health facility will operate. This would entail reporting the inappropriate behavior to the relevant authority. And ensure that the framework is transparent and accountable (Robert et al.,2020).
Furthermore, from the viewpoint of utilitarianism as a practical strategy that assesses acts according to their outcomes, solid critical thinking can also be attained in this case. One can determine what is ethically correct by weighing the potential repercussions of various actions, such as against misconduct or letting it fly.
The case of Pip is in line with the consequentialist way of thinking as it prioritizes patient safety and thriving over individual worries or institution reputation at the front, pointing towards the need for ethical decisions in healthcare settings. Ethical approaches are vital and guiding frames in complex moral issues that a healthcare provider may face at the day’s end, and these moral principles must be maintained. Capable decisions are made (Akdeniz et al., 2021).
Comparing Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance
The making of appropriately authorized actions is named misfeasance (Akhtar 2020); then again, unlawful acts occur in malfeasance. Another kind of negligence from a specialist viewpoint is nonfeasance, which generally alludes to the representative’s failure to pay out their obligation. In healthcare, misfeasance could be an off-base administration of medication, malfeasance could mean the faking of medical records and nonfeasance.
Conclusion
Understanding negligence, intentional torts, respondeat superior, and ethical decision-making is fundamental to ensuring value in healthcare as patients’ safety depends on their lives with healthcare attendants. This case of the Good Samaritan reminds us of the need to follow the brigades in solicitation to strengthen the strategy that guarantees the safety of patients and their well-being and safeguards healthcare professionals against liability. By adopting patient care as the main concentration, healthcare laborers should steadfastly cling to ethical principles and diminish the risks that may undermine the validity of such practices.
References
Akdeniz, M., Yardımcı, B., & Kavukcu, E. (2021). Ethical considerations in end-of-life care. SAGE Open Medicine, 9, 20503121211000918.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121211000918
Akhtar, Z. (2020). Misfeasance, Criminal Negligence, and Official Liability. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 55, 533.
Arora, P. (2022). Criticism of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the ambient of tort law. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 4 Issue 4, 1.
Doherty, R. F. (2020). Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions – E-Book: Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions – E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Hodge, S. D. J., & Hubbard, J. E. (2020). COVID-19: The ethical and legal implications of medical rationing. Gonzaga Law Review, 56, 159.
Kaldjian, L. C. (2024). Moral distress, conscientious practice, and the endurance of ethics in health care through times of crisis and calm. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 49(1), 11–27.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad041
Luskin, R. (2020). Caring about corporate “due care”: Why criminal respondeat superior liability outreaches its justification. American Criminal Law Review, 57, 303.
Mahyut, S. M., Qi, A. Y. X., Ni, F. L. X., Yu, K. T. W., & Xuan, P. H. (2023). Addressing the Impact of Inappropriate Language in the Workplace: A Legal Perspective. 38–78.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-154-8_3
Robert, R., Kentish-Barnes, N., Boyer, A., Laurent, A., Azoulay, E., & Reignier, J. (2020). Ethical dilemmas due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Annals of Intensive Care, 10(1), 84.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00702-7
Shenoy, A., Shenoy, G. N., & Shenoy, G. G. (2021). Respondeat superior in medicine and public health practice: The question is – Who is accountable for whom? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 17, 100634.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100634
Van Loo, R. (2020). The revival of respondeat superior and evolution of gatekeeper liability. Georgetown Law Journal, 109, 141.