In July of 2000 Curtis Williams was indicted by a grand jury in Williamson County, Texas for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. While under indictment, Williams traveled to Louisiana from Texas on a Greyhound bus. The bus Williams was traveling on was scheduled to make a stop at the Shreveport Greyhound Bus terminal on September 12,…
In the state of Ohio, the courts have taken a pro-business approach, at least regarding the nursing home industry, as is evidenced, by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case, the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home, an Ohio nursing home, by a former resident, Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home, she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence by the nursing home staff. Oakridge entered a motion seeking a stay of the court proceedings because, Hayes had signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any malpractice claims she might assert against Oakridge would be resolved…
On Monday August 21st, A body of a 5-year-old boy was found dead in A drive way of a home in West Mobile. The next day a daycare worker had been arrested and charged with abuse of a corpse.…
In Morrison v. Olsen, the issue of the Independent Counsel Provision in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was challenged and the court decided that it was not unconstitutional because it did not violate the separation of powers by taking power from the Executive and giving more to the Judicial or Legislative branches. Alexia Morrison had been appointed as the independent counsel to investigate Morrison to see if he had violated federal law; he sued her arguing that the Independent Counsel had taken away powers from the executive. The majority held that Morrison was an “inferior officer” due to the ability of the Attorney General to remove her for “good cause”, she can only perform certain limited duties, she is limited in jurisdiction, and…
Spence case, both parties were in a lawsuit about informed consent. The physician failed to tell the patient of the risks that can happen while going into surgery and any risks that can happen after the surgery. The patient was told of the surgery but did not ask for any additional information. For my personal choice in this case i would find both sides responsible for some of the factors that has happened in the decision making of the physician and the patient. I believe that if the patient has a well grounded mind then the physician should tell them about all the risks for the precare, the surgery itself, and the postoperative care. All of this information can help to save the hospital from a lawsuit. Also, when the patient is presented with an illness that can be helped with an operation they should always do some research about it. This includes being able to ask additional questions and concerns to the…
In the case of Smith v. United States, the plaintiff, John Angus Smith, was convicted of engaging in drug-trafficking, which would have granted him a five year sentence had he not “used” a firearm in regards to the incident. As stated in statute 924(c)(1), the use of firearm in relations to a drug-trafficking crime enhanced the sentence, and turned it into a 30-year sentence. The argument at hand is whether the term “use” was to be taken from a broad dictionary definition or in the ordinary meaning. The majority of the court argued that the term “use” should not be limited to the intended use of the firearm (as a weapon) as they exemplified cases of which the firearm was used as a bludgeon even though that was not it’s intended purpose, yet…
Facts: William E. Story had promised his nephew, William E. Story II, $5,000 if his nephew would abstain from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached 21 years of age. The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter dated February 6, 1875 in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promise. The uncle died a couple years later without sending the money to the nephew.…
It was determined that the plaintiffs failed to show any part of the statute led to a denied admission to any non public school on racial or religious grounds. So the complaint of violating the 14th amendment was not discussed and dismissed for lack of standing.…
The world is full of camera phones, different social media outlets, and the work of law enforcement is not hidden anymore, the general public can see the police officers performing their jobs. However, those officers quick to use gun or Taser lack the skills in de-escalation when dealing with a minor hostile situation. Nevertheless, the case of Bryan v. McPherson was related to a situation of officer Brian McPherson and motorist Carl Bryan, which Mr. Bryan was pulled over and issued a citation early that same day and headed to southern California from Camarillo to Coronado.…
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon, Dr. Grant informed the patient, Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer, which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has the right to know about all of the risks and benefits of a certain medical procedure before making a decision to either accept or unaccept that procedure. The court found for Dr. Grant, and they point out that there was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Cobbs known about the adverse effects of the surgery, he would not have consented to the operation. The plaintiff could not prove negligence was a result of the lack of informed consent. The complications associated with the surgery were expected risks therefore negligence was not present. However, I really think the surgeon should inform the patient of all the risks and the side effects of the…
Topic: What is the duty of a medical doctor/researcher to inform his/her subjects on the implications of their medical consent? Historically, how does social justice play a role in this relationship?…
In the medical field there emerges a conflict that all physicians will eventually come to deal with, or are already dealing with regularly; that is the conflict of Autonomy and informed consent versus Paternalism and the doctor's intervention. In one hand, Autonomy is the principle of non-interference and the right to self-governance; informed consent is the concept that "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body (102)" it is the exercise of a choice after being informed of the process and risks of a medical treatment. While in the other hand lies Paternalism; "the interference with, limitation of, or usurpation of individual autonomy justified by reasons referring exclusively…
Informed consent effects all populations including making sure that the correct person responsible for the individual signs the consent is equally important. According to state law only competent adults can give or refuse consent (Guido, 2006). That being said minors, incompetent adults, cognitively impaired, and the vulnerable patient must have a legal guardian or representative sign his or her consent. The only exception to this rule is in an emergency situation, therapeutic privilege, patient waver, and prior patient knowledge.…
Facts: Bridget Fisher bought a house in 1989 by herself. She married Barry Jewell, and he helped her fix the house. They lived together on and off and then married in 1990. Later, they got divorced and Jewell moved into his friend's apartment. When Jewell found out that Fisher was seeing another man, he told his friend that he wanted to beat her boyfriends head with a 2 by 4 and cut his dick off.…
4.What is the responsibility of the allied health professional with regard to informed consent forms and the process of obtaining informed consent? Informed consent is a legal document in all 50 states, prepared as an agreement for treatment, non-treatment, or for an invasive procedure that requires physicians to disclose the benefits, risks, and alternatives to said treatment, non-treatment, or procedure. It is the method by which a fully informed, rational patient may be involved in choices about his or her health care. Informed consent stems from the legal and ethical right the patient has to decide what is done to his or her body, and from the physician's ethical duty to make sure…