Legal Aspects of Healthcare Administration Part I

LegalAspects of Healthcare Administration

PartI

CaseFacts

Itis ethically wrong for any healthcare facility to neglect or exposetheir clients to threatening conditions. Nurses at the center shouldbe held responsible for any cases of patient mistakes. They shouldprovide a full care and monitoring sessions to the patients to ensuresuch cases of the above situations do not arise. Despite of this, theclient must also be well observed and monitored by the institution tocheck the psychological challenges that may affect him or her.Ignorance and poor systems is key to the death of the subject. Ittherefore stands right for the mother of the deceased boy to accusethe hospital for the demise of this young boy. The mother could notstop the desperate mistake of his son because access to the drugs wasmistake of the facility staff. It is a bare fact that is ethicallywrong and the facility must be held responsible for the negligence.

TheHospital’s Defense Approach

Sincethe hospital will deny any responsibility towards the boy’s death,they will put a spirited fight in the court case. Their lawyers willclaim that the woman was at fault as well since she forgot to notifythe hospital’s staff about the unopened cart. Also, they will statewhile using medical facts, which since the boy was never vaccinatedagainst measles and that was his first case, he was more susceptibleto succumb from it. Also, the autopsy results support their case. Itmay also be stated the son had a psychological torture that mighthave led to his decision to take the drugs.

TheLegal Stand

Althoughthe boy had no prior medical issues, and he allegedly swallowed theprescription pills that were in the open cart, the cause of death wasdetermined via autopsy as measles-related. The mother can only suefor medical negligence based on exposure to potentially harmful drugson the boy, but not for the cause of his death. To prove thisnegligence, another autopsy can be done to determine whether indeedhe ingested those pills before his demise (Pozgar, 2011).

PartII

a)The nurse clearly violated the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act of 1996. By displaying the pictures of JB viaInstagram, the nurse had violated several privacy laws. First of all,she had unwittingly given out JB’s medical report since shebroadcasted the pictures of him while in surgery. Added to that, shehad informed the general public that JB was in the hospital withoutfirst getting consent from him. This gross infringement of apatient’s rights should never happen. The hospital should ban alluse of social media and taking of pictures while in critical areassuch as emergency rooms, operation theaters, and hospital wards. Suchactions can only be allowed when the patient provides their fullconsent in written form or front of reputable witnesses.

b)Since human life is one of the basic rights that everyone is entitledto, the ED physician that neglected giving JB treatment had brokenthe law. Every patient has the right to be treated by any physicianwithin their best knowledge. The ED physician, therefore, denied JBthis right and it eventually led to his demise. The physician did acivil wrong by refusing to treat JB, and he or she was thereforesusceptible to legal repercussions (Pozgar, 2011).

c)If the ED physician got sued, the best defense they could come upwith was that treating JB while putting into consideration the mediaattention that he had would have led to the spoiling of the ED’sprofessional reputation. However, this defense would have barelyworked since the physician was required by law to treat any patientthat needed their help. Since the ED failed to perform every medicalact that he had knowledge to save JB’s life, the case was going tobe ruled against him or her.

PartIII

a)I do not agree. This is because the Affordable Care Act of 2010provided healthcare for all working people within the United States.The criterion for treatment was based on the patients having medicalinsurance. However, not all employees are provided with healthinsurance in their respective areas of employment. Such employeesinclude those that work on the fast food restaurant chains and anyother bulk employer. Such employers rarely consider giving the peoplethat work under them health insurance since they fear to incur a lotof financial costs. Therefore, the situation on the ground is thatmost of the workers that come to seek treatment can barely afford themedical care, and since they do not have the insurance, they cannotuse the ACA. Thus, they resort to the Emergency Treatment and LaborAct that eventually leads to more costs incurred by the government.Hence, the government will still have to avail more funding forhealthcare.

b)After the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, there will be asurge in the number of patients that are insured. The security thatthese patients will feel they have will eventually lead to anation-wide increase in the malpractice cases on the hospital-baseddoctors. Thus, most hospitals have resorted to the hiring of privateexternal doctors to reduce these incidents. Eventually, the personalpatient-doctor relationship that was a common practice will slowly bea thing of the past as more patients will receive treatment fromdifferent doctors within the same hospital (Pozgar, 2011).

Reference

Pozgar,G. D. (2011).&nbspLegalaspects of health care administration.Jones &amp Bartlett Publishers.