On a clinical encounter, there exist rights and responsibilities on both the patient and the caregiver. The essence of this is to ensure that the patient receives the highest quality of care available while at the same time ensuring every person plays their part entirely. The patient has a right to informed consent. This means that before the doctor does anything on the patient, they should clearly explain to the patient what they are thinking and what the problem is before embarking on a solution. For the patient to be considered to have made an informed consent, certain elements must be clear to them (Blaney-Koen, 2008) . Besides, what the physician proposes as a solution, they should know whether the procedure will be a major or a minor one. The purpose of the treatment to be given, and its nature must be clear. The results expected from the treatment and any anticipated side effects ought to be elaborated. Benefits and risks of the same and alternatives must also be made clear to the patient.
The patient has freedom from being forced or coerced into any decision. The patient can refuse or willingly withdraw from certain treatment options, and this should not, in any way, influence how they are managed in subsequent times. The patient has the liberty to seek clarity and even negotiate some aspects within their treatment journey. In terms of responsibilities on the patient's end, they are expected to report to the healthcare worker whether they clearly understand the instructions given to them by the health facility. It is the patient's responsibility to follow through the instructions given to them by the healthcare workers. Patients are held responsible for their actions when they do not follow the instructions given to them by the healthcare workers or refuse treatment. It is the patient’s responsibility to work around the prompt fulfillment of their medical financial obligations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A possible argument in this scenario was that the patient was not disclosed to all the available options. Whereas a lifestyle change may have been the best, it was the only option provided. The difficulties involved in changing a lifestyle were also not discussed. Lifestyle changes are tasking, and very few persons are able to turn around and take up new habits actively. This should have been made clear to the patient. The effects of not changing the lifestyle were not clearly indicated. The patient should have known that they stood the risk of end-organ damage if they did not reform.
For the patient to file a medical negligence case, they needed first to contact the emergency response physician. This is meant to give them a chance to see if the problem caused can be remedied in any way available. In case of a lack of any help, the issue should then be escalated to the licensing body involved with allowing physicians to practice. The patient should then check the statutory limits to see if they are within acceptable time frames to sue the doctor. They then get a medical assessment, which is meant to merit their case, getting a good attorney increases the chances of winning the case.
The doctor, however, has a defense. The key is that the patient refused to follow the instructions as given. The patient did not express the difficulty or inability to follow the instructions to the doctor (Aicher, 2000) . Informed consent which was the basis for the patient can also lack probative value as in the case of Brady vs Urbas of 2012 (Teo, Brenner, & Bal, 2017) . It is thus possible that the lack of full information on possible risks will be inadmissible in court It is the patient’s responsibility to foot their medical expenses. To sue the doctor for the expensive medications they have now been put on would be superfluous as they are responsible for their own bill. The doctor clearly indicated that following the instructions is what would avert the dangers ahead. It was thus clear that the patient was well informed, and the doctor gave the solution within a specific scope as the patient was prediabetes and not diabetic (Urban, 2004)
References
Aicher, R. (2000). Lawyers successfully sued by doctors for filing frivolous lawsuits. Aesthetic Surgery Journal , 20 (4), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2000.109122
Blaney-Koen, L. (2008). Informed Consent. Journal of Patient Safety , 4 (3), 213. https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0b013e3181873901
Teo, W. Z. W., Brenner, L. H., & Bal, B. S. (2017). Medicolegal Sidebar: (Mis)Informed Consent in Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® , 475 (11), 2643–2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5493-4
Urban, A. (2004). Recent Developments: Molé v. Jutton: A Patient Suing a Doctor for Medical Negligence Due to Lack of Informed Consent Is Not Entitled to a Jury Instruction on Battery When the Doctor Exceeds the Scope of Consent Given. Article , 35 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=lf
