Considering the series of activities that had occurred, the death was as a result of failure to administer blood. The issue can be attributed to the negligence of the paramedic. In a bid to assist in bringing the patient into a stable condition following an accident, taking particular blood samples would have been relevant. The samples would play a vital role in determining whether or not to first administer morphine or blood into the system of the patient. In this case, it would reveal that the patient had taken drugs. Additionally, since the patient was alert, instances of miscommunication may have been solved by conducting a couple of prequalifying. For this reason, when the patient is subjected to treatment from one provider to the other without effective questioning and clarifications brings forth an error of pre-examination.
However, the doctor could defend his practices on claims that the patient rejected a transfusion, which had chances of saving his life. On the contrary, the argument may be objected by the idea that the profession allows for professional discretion. Suppose the provider initiated a transfusion without having to consult the patient; it would result as a life- saving practice. Similarly, if blood samples were taken and revealed the presence of drugs, the doctor would object decisions made by the patient as he was under the influence of drugs. Despite individual autonomy being paramount, a person under the influence of drugs cannot be expected to make rational decisions concerning their health. For this reason, the doctor ought to establish their blood composition to identify whether or not they are in the position of making prudent decisions and giving useful information. As such, failure to take blood samples before the administration of intravenous demonstrates an act of negligence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moreover, the doctor may defend his practice basing them on the fact that the patient failed to provide truthful information concerning his prior engagement in drugs. Therefore, he would claim that he would not administer morphine and reject a transfusion had he known that the patient had previously taken in drugs. However, the claim would be nullified by the idea that the doctor neglected taking blood samples to gauge the effectiveness of Morphine administration. Again, taking the tests would have been the professional way of establishing the truth of the history given by the patient to decide on the effective procedure to be performed.
In my opinion, the claim that would best be laid against the doctor based on his conduct would be that he neglected professional ethics that require him to safeguard the life of patients’ lives and protect their dignity. Therefore, he failed in his position as the doctor when he liaises with a patient in failing to administer a practice that would save a life. The case presents a patient who had a previous drug intake; therefore, he lacked an effective capacity for making sound judgment. The doctor is in a sober condition, unlike the patient; therefore, he ought to initiate procedures that would see the protection from a life-threatening situation as the end to a goal. The doctor fails to acknowledge that the patient may not understand the role of a transfusion but still be looking forward to the continuity of life. Thus, the doctor had to explain to the patient the essence of each procedure that he proposes to him. The explanation may lay an effective platform for the patient to decide on the practice based on the implications painted by the medical practitioner.
