Question

Following an automobile accident, a 46-year-old man was brought to the hospital emergency department by an ambulance. The patient seemed to be alert, was able to answer questions, and claimed to be suffering from a great deal of pain. The physician administered 15 milligrams of morphine intravenously. The patient needed blood but refused a transfusion. After being observed in the emergency department for several hours, the patient was placed on a medical-surgical unit for observation. The following morning, he was unresponsive, and he was eventually pronounced dead. It was later discovered that he had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. The night of the accident, he had injected heroin and drank several shots of tequila and multiple cans of beer. He had not disclosed any of this to the doctors or nurses treating him. Several years later, his estate sued the physician, claiming medical malpractice.

Analyze the possible outcomes of the lawsuit under one of the following scenarios:

·       If death was the result of overdose

·       If death was the result of failure to administer blood

·       If death was the result of subdural hematoma

In your short paper, analyze the potential success of a claim for negligence under one of the three possible scenarios. Include a detailed discussion of each element of the negligence claim and why that element is met or not met. Discuss the possible defenses that could be reasonably asserted by the doctor to each claim, and why that defense might apply. Lastly, include a paragraph describing which, if any, claim you believe might be the most successful against the doctor and why.

Analyze the possible outcomes of the lawsuit under one of the following

Answer 1

In the scenario where the death was the result of failure to administer blood, the possible outcome of the lawsuit can be discussed as follows:

The elements of medical negligence include:

1. The existence of a legal duty on the part of the doctor to provide care or treatment to the patient: The patient was brought to the emergency department and the physician had carried out his duty by providing emergency care. Though the patient was advised blood transfusion, he refused and hence it was not possible to transfuse blood without consent, the patient being alert and able to answer questions, it was necessary to obtain consent. Also, the patient was under continuous monitoring in the medical surgical unit, therefore this element is not met.

2. A breach of this duty by a failure of the treating doctor to adhere to the standards of the profession: There was no breach of professional duty in this case, as it is evident that emergency care care was provided and blood transfusion was advised. In emergency situations such as this, if the patient was unconscious the physician need not have obtained consent, but since the patient was alert and able to answer questions, it was necessary to obtain consent, but he explicitly refused transfusion. Also, patient was kept under observation in the medical surgical unit.

3. A causal relationship between such breach of duty and injury to the patient: There is no evidence of injury caused by breach of duty. Hence this element is not met.

4. The existence of damages that flow from the injury such that the legal system can provide redress: Since there is no evidence of injury caused by breach of duty, the damages cannot be sought.

The claim that could be most successful against the doctor could be a breach of professional duty, if the doctor had not explored the use of substitute decision maker for blood transfusion, keeping in mind the critical situation. Also the patient could have been under continuous monitoring in an intensive care unit instead the patient was kept in a medical surgical unit. In addition,the measures taken to resuscitate the patient when he was unresponsive and failure to observe the early neurological signs can all go against the doctor.