75 points total
This assignment contains 2 parts.
You will need to access and utilize the following texbook for this assignment. Instructions for accessing the E-Book are attached. You will need to provide in-text citations and references from the book —-
Applied Law & Ethics for Health Professionals 2nd Edition – Stanford, Carla Caldwell ISBN 10: 1284155595 / ISBN 13: 9781284155594
More so, for Part 2 of this assignment, watch the listed youtube video, and utilize the attached article.
I realize there are two parts to this assignment, but I would prefer if the writer make the work flow. Do not use Questin & Answer format. Be thourough in you readings and responses.
Please do not write in an incredibly eloquent mannerism. Proof read all work before sending it to me.
A 49-year-old female patient was scheduled for burr-hole drainage of a subdural hematoma she had sustained in a fall. The night before the surgery, the patient was evaluated by a neurosurgeon and a third-year neurosurgery resident. The burr-hole procedure was agreed upon, the risks and benefits were discussed with the patient and her husband, and the patient signed an informed consent form.
The next morning the resident brought the patient to the operating room and performed burr-hole drainage of a right subdural hematoma with placement of two subdural drainage catheters. The resident?s supervising neurosurgeon was not in the operating room during the surgery, although he had reviewed the procedure with the resident before the surgery. Postoperatively, the patient had left hemiparesis. A CT scan revealed that the right frontal catheter had entered the right frontal cortex. The attending physician met with the patient and her husband and explained the nature of the complication. The catheters were subsequently removed, and the patient was discharged to a rehabilitation center. She continued to have left-sided weakness, paralysis and pain.
The patient and her husband sued the attending neurosurgeon and the resident, alleging improper performance of the procedure, negligent supervision of a physician in training and improper informed consent. They testified that their understanding was that the attending physician ? not the resident ? would perform the surgery. Complicating this situation were the facts that the attending physician was listed as the primary surgeon on the operative report, and the resident had never before performed the procedure independently.
Expert reviewers thought that while the decision to perform the burr-hole drainage of the hematoma was proper, the attending physician should have been present during surgery to supervise and assist. They believed the resident?s placement of the drainage catheter into brain tissue caused significant, permanent paralysis. In addition, experts asserted that if the resident had been directly observed and supervised during the procedure, the complication would likely have been prevented. Further, experts believed the informed consent process was flawed because the attending physician?s name, not the resident?s, appeared on the consent form and the patient and her husband testified in depositions that they had expected the attending neurosurgeon to perform the surgery. Because expert reviewers thought the care and informed consent process did not meet the standard and more likely than not caused harm to the patient, the case was settled.
Question 1: What are the 4 components of medical malpractice? (5 points)
Question 2: Are the 4 components present here? Identify how each component is satisfied or not satisfied based on this fact pattern. (20 points, 5 points for each of the 4 components).
Part 2 ? Worth 50 points
Watch this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8gVJ37BEyE
Dr. Michael K. Gusmano, a bioethicist and public health scholar at Rutgers University and The Hastings Center, joins Dr. John Warner to discuss that question and other ethical dilemmas that have developed during the pandemic.
Answer the following questions:
Question 1: Dr. Gusmano discusses two high priority populations to receive the first doses of a COVID vaccine. They are vulnerable populations and front line medical workers. In no more than three paragraphs, describe which ethical philosophy or principle would justify this approach. (10 points)
Question 2: Based on this YouTube video and the reading that appears under Module Week 12 ? which discusses public health powers during an emergency, could the coronavirus vaccine be made mandatory by the government? What other types of strategies could be used to help encourage individuals to get the vaccine? Answer this question in no more than 5 paragraphs. (40 points)
To Access the E-book for this assignment:
?Use this link to access chegg
?Login in using the following credentials:
?On the left-hand side, hit ?books?
?Scroll down to ?Applied Law & Ethics for Health Professionals?
You can use the search bar to quickly search for concepts pertaining to the questions. Ethical models are located in the first two chapters.