Paramedic Retrospective Analysis

Introduction

Ethical and legal dilemmas are faced in making decisions in life. The dilemma may be faced because of dealing with people who are not willing to cooperate. When the wrong decision is made, it may lead to legal implications when the outcome is wrong. There are various grounds that can be used to explain how to make a decision in life and these are autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence. In the case of Walker Coronial Inquest, only the external analysis was carried out by the paramedics after the accident, and they did not take her to the hospital to conduct further review. When the patient was taken for further investigation to the hospital, she passed away (Bingham, 2011). The cause of death was identified to be blood loss which resulted after the spleen was torn and the ribs were fractured after the motor vehicle accident. It is clear that the paramedics were not serious about their work as they could have taken Ms. Walker to the hospital for further investigation. The following work will help investigate the ethical decision making and retrospective analysis.

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

Save 25%

To explain the decision of the paramedics on beneficence, it is where an intentional act is carried out meant to achieve a positive outcome. The paramedics carried out an internal analysis of Ms. Walker so that they could stabilize her after the accident and ensure that any wounds were covered (Blaber, 2012). After an accident, the patient faces a traumatic situation, and the paramedics are required to conduct a head to toe analysis after an injury to establish the state of the patient. A patient may be injured internally and even breeding, but it is hard to establish the conditions and texts have to be carried out (In Willis and In Dalrymple, 2015). It is a systematic approach which can be conducted to increase the speed and accuracy of the clinical judgment. When good trauma care is provided, it helps in prevention of the death. In the case provided, the paramedics spoke to the patient after the road traffic accident, and she responded and an indication that he could be able to speak thus not accepted. The paramedics conducted a basic medical assessment which means they did not carry out the head to toe assessment. Therefore, there must have been internal injuries the patient encountered, and it may have been the cause he was pronounced dead. It was negligence on the part of the paramedics (Griffiths and Mooney, 2012).

Non-maleficence is where an act is carried out without causing harm intentionally. After the assessment of the patient and indication that she was okay, the paramedics may be allowed her to go with the police officers to the station to state without determining that she would have internal injuries that may have caused her death. After the basic assessment, the paramedics did not even try to convince the patient to go with them to the hospital for the head to toe analysis (James, 1993). Though the patient was persuaded to go the hospital with the paramedics for further investigation, she refused, and the paramedics did not try to convince her, and they did not even ask for equipment to carry out further analysis. The police officers also tried to convince the patient to go with the paramedics for further investigation (Carter, 2013). However, the patient was even persuaded by the officers to get a further assessment, but he refused. Though the roadside breath test was positive, the patient became unconscious and passed on. The paramedics caused harm unintentionally.

Autonomy is where a patient has the right to decide what they want (Nordby, 2013). In a situation where the patient can talk and decide whether they require any healthcare assistance. When the patient is of sound mind as seen by Ms. Walker, she has the right to decide on what they want.

Justice is where dignity and respect for others are shown. It is where the patient should have been advised by the police officers and paramedic advised the patient to go for a further check-up to ensure that no internal injuries were seen (Curtis and Ramsden, 2011). There are various reasons as to why the initial evaluation of the trauma patients should be carried out. It helps in stabilizing the patient as seen in the case of the patient who was sustained and even indicated that he could not go for follow-up because she was fine (Steer, 2012). It helps in identification of life-threatening conditions to avoid any risk and initiate supportive treatment. Therefore, the assessment should be both internal and external to make sure that there are no internal injuries or bleeding (Erbay, 2015). Preparation and coordination of care out of the hospital should involve the necessary tests. It is necessary for hospital phase to follow where other serious tests will be carried out to determine whether further treatment should be provided. If the paramedics were not negligent and insisted on further check-up, the patient would not have died (Braithwaite, 2014). However, they could not force her to decide on what she did not want as it would be unjust.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paramedics can face a legal case because of negligence which leads to the death of the patient. As paramedics, they were supposed to promote the welfare of the patient by making sure they carried out a head to toe evaluation of the patient. After stabilizing the patient, the next stop should be to the hospital where the patient should undergo various tests to ensure that they are fine both internally and externally. There is a procedure that should be used by the paramedics, and a patient should not die on their care. After an accident, all the patients should be taken to the hospital, and thus it would help in further analysis to ensure that the diagnosis provided is correct. It is also the ethical thing to do since cases of internal injury are many and causes death after an accident (Beebe and Myers, 2010). The police officers may face a case of negligence as they decided to take the patient for further investigation instead of accompanying him to the hospital and waiting for more medical tests to be carried out to determine if the patient was well enough to answer the questions that may be required. The case would be ruled against the paramedics, and they would be held legible for the death of the patient.

References

Beebe, R., & Myers, J. (2010). Foundations of paramedic care, volume 1. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.

Bingham, S.-L. (2011). Refusal of treatment and decision-making capacity. Nursing Ethics, 167-172.

Blaber, A. (2012). Foundations For Paramedic Practice: A Theoretical Perspective. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Braithwaite, S. S. (2014). Ethics In Paramedic Practice: A Qualitative Case Study of Paramedic Perceptions of Ethical Decision-making in Practice. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University.

Carter H, G. (2013). Understanding clinical review following a death in custody. Continuing Professional Development, 54-59.

Curtis, K., & Ramsden, C. (2011). Emergency and Trauma Care for Nurses and Paramedics. Mosby Australia

Erbay, H. (2015). A case study from the perspective of medical ethics: the refusal of treatment in an ambulance. Clinical Ethics, 652-655.

Griffiths, P., & Mooney, G. P. (2012). The paramedic's guide to research: An introduction. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

James, A. (1993). Ethical Conflicts in the Prehospital Settings. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 1259-1269.

In Willis, S., & In Dalrymple, R. (2015). Fundamentals of paramedic practice: A systems approach. Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

Nordby, H. (2013). Should paramedics ever accept patients' refusal of treatment or further assessment? Medical Ethics, 5.

Steer, B. (2012). Paramedics, consent, and refusal - are we competent? Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 11.