The jury was right to hold the nurse liable for malpractice. This is clearly evident through the opinion of the expert who recognizes the rights of the nurse and her obligation in the safety of the patient. It is the expert’s testimony that guides the jury in their judgement on what a competent nurse would have done while in the same situation. This is a clear picture that the nurse in question was incompetent. The argument that the nurse was acting on orders of the physician does not hold water in this situation. This is because the nurse does not always have to follow the orders of the physician and in some cases need to raise a concern before enacting the order. It is the responsibility of the nurse to assess the situation before taking actions or carrying out orders. In this situation, the nurse should have raised concern on the safety of the patient or taken other actions to ensure the safety of her patient especially with the situation of being out of surgery and under influence of anesthesia.
There are many situations when the nurse may decline following the physician’s orders or raise concerns on the decision of the physician. One of these situations is when he or she has a doubt in the right medication to be administered to the patient. They are at liberty to question the doctor’s orders and if the decision is persisted they can seek clarification from higher authorities. The nurses can also disobey orders if they think they are not qualified to carry out a given task. He or she has the right to decline an assignment for which he or she is not qualified to do. They are also at liberty to decline performing a task that is against their personal ethical standards. They have legal and ethical means to refuse these assignments. Some of these tasks may include abortion. It is also their right to object on grounds of religious conflicts. The right of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution and their right is protected. These are but some of the many situations where a nurse can ignore or disobey physician’s orders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The main principle that guides the decision to hold the hospital liable is the vicarious liability that indicates that a master is liable to the mistakes and negligence made by the servant who is acting within the scopes his or her setup or environment. There is an overall consideration that the master should be able to control the actions of the servant in this case under boss-employee relationship. The court has to hold someone responsible for the mistakes and their philosophy of action the party at best position to prevent the incident should be held responsible. This kind of principle rules out the actions of an independent contractor who will be held liable for their actions.
There were other precautions that this nurse would have taken to ensure the safety of the patient. Some of these actions include keeping the bed in the lowest possible position to prevent or minimize the injuries on patient fall. Frequently checking of the patient would have also helped to some extent. It is evident that the movement of the patient was not instant or abrupt, so there is a chance that the nurse might have found the patient trying to come down the bed. Placing mats next to the bed is also an effort that might to some extent minimize the injuries in occurrence of a fall from the bed. The mat’s choice used should not pose a greater threat of injury. Anticipating the needs of a patient that may necessitate his or her move out of the bed and placing these things at close reach may help sometime.
