Legal and Ethical Issues in Nursing Paper Example

There are four kinds of evidence that a plaintiff can present to establish a negligent act. They include real, documentary, demonstrative, and testimonial pieces of evidence (Pozgar, 2013). Real evidence is any relevant, competent and material characteristic of an action caused by the defendant to the plaintiff because of a negligent act. The actual injury experienced by a patient, the plaintiff due to the negligible act of a nurse is an example of real evidence. Documentary evidence entails any document used as proof of carrying out a particular action between the plaintiff and the defendant. Any documented evidence can be authenticated as real evidence.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Demonstrative evidence is presented by a witness with the intention of demonstrating the features of a particular incident. It is used to illustrate the testimony of a witness. Testimonial evidence is provided by witnesses and used by the court to establish the facts of the case. It is a basic type of evidence that does not need any other support for it to be accepted by the court. Testimonial evidence is what a competent witness in the court of law says during a case proceeding. Therefore, in the complaint, the plaintiff can present the identified parties involved in the case as witnesses, the cause of action taken by the defendant that led to the damages incurred by the plaintiff as well as the demand for damages. The defenses that a defendant can present in order to refute a plaintiff's evidence include assumption of risk, comparative negligence, intervening cause, borrowed servant doctrine, statute of limitations and the Good Samaritan laws (Pozgar, 2014; Pozgar, & Santucci, 2015).

Statutes of Limitations as a Defense

The statute of limitations protects the professional nurse, the defendant when the patient fails to raise a case in a court of law within the designated time limit set for claims to be made (Guido, 2014). The nurse will not need to worry if the time for making a claim by the patient ends. The statutes of limitations also protect the injured parties since a patient can claim the action of the nurse as an ordinary negligence when the case for filing a malpractice case may take longer (Pozgar, & Santucci, 2015).

Protection of Patients from Quasi-Intentional Torts

In protecting the patients from quasi-intentional torts, staff nurses should obtain informed consent from the patient (Guido, 2014). They must provide complete information on procedures to be undertaken on the patients before the process begins. Staff nurses must ensure that they are knowledgeable of the purpose of treatment as they explain to the patient and confirm that the patient or any other person signing the informed consent form is competent. The staff nurses should be aware that the physician has the responsibility of providing details of the procedure to the patient. This does not differ from the nurse manager's role in preventing quasi-intentional torts. The nurse manager has the same role of preventing these types of torts to a patient just like a staff nurse. The nurse manager is not limited to this duty as a leader in the medical profession. The only difference is that the nurse manager must work to ensure that the juniors are following the correct medical procedures as set in the standards of care and the medical law.

Case Study: Chapter 5

The failure to document an admission nursing assessment does equate to the fact that the nurse did no admission nursing assessment. Documenting all medical procedures is the duty of the nurse after carrying out an assessment during admission (Guido, 2014). The two actions are different whereby the nurse undertook an assessment on admission but did not document it. However, the failure to document all nursing care such as an admission nursing assessment is a medical malpractice means that such type of care was not provided to that patient (Oyebode, 2013). When nursing care is not documented, the court usually takes the assumption that it was not rendered to the patient and the nurse is liable for a negligent act.

In his supplemental report, the patient's attorney might further allege that the nurse's failure to follow hospital policies and medical procedures in documenting the admission assessment affected the entire medical care provided to the patient.

One would decide on the standard of care for this patient based on the performance of an average reasonable nurse, practicing in a similar circumstance and delivering care to the same patient. Nurses must be aware of regulations that govern the delivery of care to a patient (Guido, 2014). Therefore, the nurse caring for the patient at this circumstance needed to apply the reasonableness of an average nurse and perform the tasks set out in the hospital policy regarding the expectation of nursing care and their responsibilities in the institution. Failure of documenting care may lead to missed diagnosis in the process of treating a patient (Oyebode, 2013).

I would decide the outcome of this case as that of nursing malpractice as a result of negligence, misconduct, and breach of duty that caused damage to the patient. Failing to document nursing admission assessment is a negligible act of nursing malpractice (Guido, 2014). The nurse violated the duty of care to the patient by not following the standards of care set out by the institution.

Case Study: Chapter 6

There was negligence in this case and the two nurses should be liable for the negligence that caused injury to the patient. As a result of not using the recommended in-and-out urinary catheterization for draining urine from the patient's bladder, the two nurses were negligent in their actions. Negligence entails any careless commission or omission of an act. The two nurses are liable for professional negligence or malpractice as they did not act according to the prevailing standard of care (Guido, 2014). Instead of using the recommended type of procedure by the surgeon, the first nurse went ahead and used a different one. The second nurse supported the first nurse in using a method that is not recommended as a catheterization procedure on the patient.

The types of damages that should be assessed include general, special, and punitive damages (Guido, 2014). The general damages will be assessed to determine whether the patient has suffered pain, suffering and emotional stress because of the injury caused on the urethra by the negligent nurses. I would begin to determine the amount to assess by evaluating the patients' status of pain, emotion or any presence of stress and inability to perform particular functions. Special damages will be assessed based on the amount of money that the patient will spend in the hospital for treatment of the new surgery to be undertaken by the surgeons. Punitive damages will be assessed on the basis of the malpractice committed by the two nurses. Their behavior of malpractice and leading the patient's injury will be assessed with the aim of making the nurses to compensate the patient for the injury and pain they have caused. The nurses

The percentage of liability for the multiple defendants will be determined by considering the jointly and severally liable procedure for any party involved in the negligible act that caused injury to the patient (Guido, 2014). Based on the combined negligence of the two nurses, the first nurse will be jointly and severally liable to pay a higher percentage of 50% and above of the total amount of damages to the patient. The second nurse will be severally liable to pay a 50% or less of the amount of compensation to the patient. The percentage will be attributable to the partial contribution to the negligent action that caused injury to the patient.

I would decide this case as an assault on the patient caused by the nurses without the patients' consent. The nurses placed the client in a physically injurious manner by using a Foley catheter with an inflatable retention bulb instead of using the recommended in-and-out catheter by the surgeon. The two nurses will be liable to pay general, special and punitive damages to the patient.

Case Study: Chapter 7

There were damages that should be paid to the patient for negligence because the hospital and healthcare professionals did not perform their duties as required. They were negligent not to do an inspection of the Bovie instrument before it is used by the surgeon.

The individuals who should be responsible for these damages include the hospital, surgeon, and the nurse anesthetist. The hospital is the most liable individual in this matter because it is the responsibility of the institution to provide workers with effective working instruments. The surgeon and the nurse anesthetist are the second and third individuals liable for the damages owed to the patient respectively. It is the responsibility of the surgeon to inspect the proper working of a medical instrument before its use. It is also the responsibility of the nurse anesthetist to ensure all the equipment set for surgery are inspected for proper working.

The Bovie manufacture should also be included in the lawsuit for making and distributing defective medical equipment in the market (Guido, 2014). The manufacturer is liable for compensatory damages that the patient suffered because of the injury caused by the defective Bovie equipment.

Based on the medical malpractice, the defense available for the defendants possible to mitigate their liability to this patient is the respectable minority principle. The surgeon, hospital, and nurse anesthetist can claim that they provided the patient with a recommendation of radical treatment to effectively treat the patient's permanent scars and reduced vision. As claimed in the appeal, the medical profession had already informed the patient about the fire and the injuries it caused. The recommendation of appropriate treatment options for a full recovery is a defense that can mitigate the liability of the surgeon, hospital and the nurse anesthetists.

In this instance, the court should decide the damage awards based on the efforts of the medical profession and the hospital in recommending the best treatment options available for her. Therefore, the court should uphold the decision for the defendants to pay the damages for malpractice and revoke the additional $425,000 claim for damages resulting from the fraudulent concealment of facts about the fire incident from the patient.

References

Guido, G. W. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in nursing (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oyebode, F. (2013). Clinical errors and medical negligence. Medical Principles and Practice, 22(4).Pozgar, G. D. (2013). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (3rd ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Pozgar, G., & Santucci, N. (2015). Legal aspects of healthcare administration. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.