Aspirin Case
1. A physician forgets to tell a patient about the risk of combining a prescribed drug with aspirin and the patient takes two aspirin for a headache:
In this scenario the extend of liability depends on the drug being prescribed, if the drug is dispensing in generic form with no warnings, then the physician could be considered liable, however it is still possible to make the argument that the patient would have been proactive about potential contraindications, and consult the dispensing pharmacy. If the drug comes in a package with an insert clearly stating contraindications, the fault should come to the patient for not following due diligence and reading the package insert.
a. The patient has a nasty spell of vomiting for an hour or so …show more content…
and recovers.
The injured in this case is minor, and non-disabling, nor incurs in additional cost, therefore liability is not pertinent.
b. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and visits an ED for care (the cost is $2200) which is covered by the patient's insurance.
Since insurance has covered the procedure, there is no cost liability, depending on the severity of the bleeding, and the specific circumstance where the information was omitted by the physician, then the patient might have a claim for pain and suffering.
c. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and visits an ED for care (the cost is $2200) and the patient is uninsured.
Since insurance has not covered the procedure, there is cost liability, depending on the severity of the bleeding, and the specific circumstance where the information was omitted by the physician, then the patient might have a claim for medical payments in addition to pain and suffering.
d. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and has a significant chronic disease. The combined effects of the bleeding and the disease permanently disable the patient, so he can no longer work.
Due to the disabling nature of the injure there is a potential case for malpractice based on tor …show more content…
law.
e. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and has a significant chronic disease. The combined effects of the bleeding and the disease kill the patient.
The practice would be liable, but further investigation should be made into the drug manufacturer to determine whether or not the proper information was available to providers to prevent this incident.
In all this professional standard could come into play for the benefit of the provider's practice, as part of their accountability efforts, there should standard notes about contraindications with common over the counter drugs when adding a prescription to the patients record.
It last on the intricacies of tor law to allow the injured party to proof that the defendant was negligent. These scenarios fail to indicate additional information required to determine whether the provider was at fault (Emanuel, 1997). For examples is standard to ask patients each visit about which prescriptions and over the counter medications they use on a regular basis. If the patient failed to list aspirin in this screening, then it will be very difficult to determine that the provider was negligent, if the opposite is true then, scenarios C to E might have grounds for a malpractice lawsuit. For Scenarios D and E the IATROGENIC nature of the complications is not clear, was the disease caused directly from the drug interactions, or was this due to a nosocomial infection, in the latter case liability falling to the hospital and not the initial provider (Krishnan and Kasthuri,
2005).
Tor law and professional standard can protect patients for unscrupulous practice among providers, but depending on where the service is provided proof that a provider was at fault can be difficult, this said having incentives to provider better care and reduce cost an liability is of benefit for both parties.
Krishnan, N. and Kasthuri, A. (2005). Iatrogenic Disorders. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 61(1), pp.2-6.
Emanuel, L. (1997). Perspective: Professional Standards In Health Care Calling All Parties To Account. Health Affairs, 16(1), pp.52-54.
In this scenario the extend of liability depends on the drug being prescribed, if the drug is dispensing in generic form with no warnings, then the physician could be considered liable, however it is still possible to make the argument that the patient would have been proactive about potential contraindications, and consult the dispensing pharmacy. If the drug comes in a package with an insert clearly stating contraindications, the fault should come to the patient for not following due diligence and reading the package insert.
a. The patient has a nasty spell of vomiting for an hour or so …show more content…
and recovers.
The injured in this case is minor, and non-disabling, nor incurs in additional cost, therefore liability is not pertinent.
b. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and visits an ED for care (the cost is $2200) which is covered by the patient's insurance.
Since insurance has covered the procedure, there is no cost liability, depending on the severity of the bleeding, and the specific circumstance where the information was omitted by the physician, then the patient might have a claim for pain and suffering.
c. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and visits an ED for care (the cost is $2200) and the patient is uninsured.
Since insurance has not covered the procedure, there is cost liability, depending on the severity of the bleeding, and the specific circumstance where the information was omitted by the physician, then the patient might have a claim for medical payments in addition to pain and suffering.
d. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and has a significant chronic disease. The combined effects of the bleeding and the disease permanently disable the patient, so he can no longer work.
Due to the disabling nature of the injure there is a potential case for malpractice based on tor …show more content…
law.
e. The patient experiences intestinal bleeding and has a significant chronic disease. The combined effects of the bleeding and the disease kill the patient.
The practice would be liable, but further investigation should be made into the drug manufacturer to determine whether or not the proper information was available to providers to prevent this incident.
In all this professional standard could come into play for the benefit of the provider's practice, as part of their accountability efforts, there should standard notes about contraindications with common over the counter drugs when adding a prescription to the patients record.
It last on the intricacies of tor law to allow the injured party to proof that the defendant was negligent. These scenarios fail to indicate additional information required to determine whether the provider was at fault (Emanuel, 1997). For examples is standard to ask patients each visit about which prescriptions and over the counter medications they use on a regular basis. If the patient failed to list aspirin in this screening, then it will be very difficult to determine that the provider was negligent, if the opposite is true then, scenarios C to E might have grounds for a malpractice lawsuit. For Scenarios D and E the IATROGENIC nature of the complications is not clear, was the disease caused directly from the drug interactions, or was this due to a nosocomial infection, in the latter case liability falling to the hospital and not the initial provider (Krishnan and Kasthuri,
2005).
Tor law and professional standard can protect patients for unscrupulous practice among providers, but depending on where the service is provided proof that a provider was at fault can be difficult, this said having incentives to provider better care and reduce cost an liability is of benefit for both parties.
Krishnan, N. and Kasthuri, A. (2005). Iatrogenic Disorders. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 61(1), pp.2-6.
Emanuel, L. (1997). Perspective: Professional Standards In Health Care Calling All Parties To Account. Health Affairs, 16(1), pp.52-54.