Medical Law

Medical Law

What the University must do to assess whether Dr. Hippocrates, RadDude and Muffler Health committed overzealous and unsafe acts

Ensuring the provision of standard care remains paramount for Muffler Health. However, in some circumstances, a healthcare provider may breach the legal duty of care. As the University counsel, I am prompted to adhere to the recommended institutional guidelines in a bid to investigate into the matter.

Firstly, a disciplinary committee ought to get formed under the quality management department of the University. Such a step gets done immediately with the inclusion of representatives from each of the professional teams in Muffler Health. The board will assess various elements of the claims raised by the client to draw formidable conclusions if malicious acts got committed. Consultation of the public health law is essential in guiding the board to sticking to the confines of the state law (Gostin & Wiley, 2016). All factors are taken into consideration; the committee ought to remain conscious that an injured patient has a right to present an informed consent action against a clinician who fails to follow the biomedical ethics and standards of practice as outlined in a specific state. They also have to acknowledge that some clients can act maliciously for the fulfillment of their interests through compensations.

Subsequently, the committee will look into the potential civil actions taken against health care practitioners, including medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The process will entail an assessment of whether Dr. Hippocrates and her assistant RadDude assessed the eligibility of the internist physician ordering the CT study on the grounds of its the pros and cons, and the available alternatives. The board evaluates whether a proper obtaining of the informed consent, including patient information, delivered, the use of the appropriate skill, using the correct dose of contrast.

The university committee will get commissioned to assess the claims of the complainant from the unassigned letter and their magnitude of proof of malpractice to support their allegation. In such cases, the patient must establish claims against the medical provider. After that, the case will be referred to a particular board, which includes a district medical officer, a police surgeon, and a public prosecutor for review. Finally, the University will acquire an attorney, as a representative, in case the case proceeds for a court hearing.

All Responsible Parties with Legal Liability

The stakeholders who are legally liable to the issue include the University, the president of Muffler Health, Dr. Hippocrates, and her assistant RadDude. The university and Muffler Health management professionals, including its president, have the liability concerning the laid standards for medical practitioners practicing in the radiology department. Dr. Hippocrates and her radiologist assistant, RadDude, are also legally liable since they constitute the medical practitioners directly involved in conducting the imagery procedure.

Legal Theory that Might Apply

Realist legal theory would apply in this situation. In this case, the realist theory of law focusses on the actual application of law other than the traditional definitions. The outlined code is used to resolve practical issues or cases. It reinstates that rules are used in the contemporary legal system to make decisions in various disciplines in courts (Brilmayer & Seidell, 2019).  In essence, a ruling by a judge is considered as law and not from lawmakers.

An Action Plan to Defend the University Against the Legal and Public Relations Challenges

One of the first steps to take is hiring an attorney to represent the University and the accused practitioners. Dr. Hippocrates should be contacted immediately about the weight of the matter, thus required to take it seriously but not panic. All accounts of the engagement of the client by RadDude ought to be recorded precisely. Besides, the agreement reached, any consent provided by the complaint will be provided by presenting the signed consent forms. Concerning the Computed tomography imaging the complainant went through, the radiologist applied the appropriate standards of practice by following the guidelines appropriately, obtaining informed consent, and injecting the correct dose of the contrast dye. Such will be used for defending the liable as per the instructions in proving a medical provider guilty (Suresh, 2018). The plan will also involve disputing the unsigned letter because it cannot be declared official. Then, the complainant ought to provide quality evidence to support their allegation of medical malpractice to the accusing party. Such a plan will remain congruent with the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the relevant sections containing the law of medical malpractice.

References

Brilmayer, L., & Seidell, C. (2019). Jurisdictional Realism. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(8), 2031-2100.

Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2016). Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Univ of California Press.

Suresh, V. (2018). Health Law in India. Available at SSRN 3239614.