First Scenario: Professional Negligence
A five weeks old male infant is presented in a hospital for the repair of his bilateral inguinal hernia. After proper pre-check that included weighting, the medical personnel administer a 0.5 mg injection of midazolam followed by a 3.5ml of bupivacaine 0.25% for awake caudal block. After 20 minutes, the block was still incomplete, leading to the introduction of general anesthesia. 6mg of lidocaine was, therefore, administered along with 60mg of propofol. The anesthesia was maintained through inhalation of oxygen, nitrous oxide, and isoflurane (Taheri, Seyedhejazi, & Abafattash, 2011). After two minutes of the 60 mg propofol injection, the infants’ pressure fell to 60/20, and his heart rate increased to 120 beats per minute. His health deteriorated drastically and became potentially fatal.
After a quick re-check on the procedure, the medical personnel discovered that the right dosage for the infant was 12 mg of propofol. The personnel had administered a five-fold overdose. In the resolution procedure, the infant was put on an intravenous of 2.5% dextrose in Ringer's lactate solution at a rate of 20 ml per kilogram per hour. The side effects of propofol overdose were normalized, and the surgery resumed. The infant had to be monitored for two more days before discharge. The parents accused the health personnel of negligence that risked their infant's life and increased their medical bill. This was settled through a waiver of the entire medical bill, monetary compensation, and free future checkups to monitor the infant's progress.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Second Scenario: Intentional Tort
A 23-year female client visits a hospital for what she suspects to be a sexually transmitted infection (STI). She is assigned to a 40-year male gynecologist who examines her and overrules an STI. She is treated with candidiasis and asked to return a week later for further checks. After the second checkup, the patient is cured, but the gynecologists insist on further checkups. His mission at this stage is to have more body contact with the lady. After several checkups, the two agree to have an affair. Two months into the relationship, the lady becomes pregnant. The gynecologist asks the lady to visit his workstation for a pregnancy checkup. While in his premise, the gynecologist repeatedly inserts a medical gadget into her uterus. The lady realizes later that the procedure had initiated a miscarriage.
The scenario between the female client and the gynecologist amounts to an intentional tort. An intentional tort is an action that results in harm to a plaintiff but does not arise due to negligence or careless behavior. The pain caused in a tort might not be intended, but the actions leading to the pain are intended (The Babcock Law Firm, 2020). The female client can pursue two counts of charges against the gynecologist. First, she could pursue a battery. Battery is a touching, whether harmful or harmless, that is intentional and unconsented. Touching the lady's uterus with the medical gadgets was not only unconsented but led to a miscarriage, which amounts to harm. The lady could also sue for wrongful abortion since he failed to inform her of the consequences of the procedure before his actions.
Third Scenario: Violation of Patient Rights
A 6-year-old male patient is brought into a health facility by a 19-year-old female. The patient has chest pains, fever, is emaciated, and has a persistent wet cough, characteristic of tuberculosis. The female in the company of the patients explains that she is a concerned neighbor, and she is not related to the patient. She elaborates that the patient's mother is a member of a religious sect that does not allow members to seek regular medication aside from prayers and religious rituals. The medical personnel cites that the mother to the six-year male patient has freedom of worship and should consent before any therapeutic interventions to the child. Contact is made to the patient's mother, who objects to any medication. She comes minutes later and picks her untreated child.
In the third scenario, the healthcare provider violated the child’s right to access medication. The medical personnel was correct in citing the religious rights of the mother but failed to recognize that the child was a different entity. The law permits martyrdom among adults but outlaws religious activities that endanger the health of the community and children. Healthcare providers have the responsibility of ensuring that children and patients with mental illness do not fall victim to martyrdom. The two groups have a right to medication.
