Health Law and Ethics

This essay discusses the legal and ethical issues in healthcare, focusing on the responsibilities of medical practitioners. It explores the concept of patient autonomy, the importance of obtaining consent, and the principles of bioethics. The essay also examines the potential civil suit against a doctor for medical negligence and the defense that can be claimed. Overall, it highlights the need for a balance between legal obligations and ethical principles in healthcare.

RUNNING HEAD: HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
Health Law and Ethics

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
Introduction
There is no value set in the stone. They evolve as the behavior shifts from society.
When societal norms and academic standards changed half a century earlier, it is necessary to
take the medical career that shifted from physicians to the view of the patients. In many
clinical and public health interactions ethical and legal issues occur. The main purpose of this
essay is to give brief details of laws and ethical doctrines that applies to the given situation.
This essay will state about the legal remedy that the Adam, Sue, Bryan have against Dr Lin as
well as standard of evidence. It will further define about the defenses, which Dr Lin can claim
as well as it will also provide for the dispute between the laws and ethical principles.
Legal Issue
A possible civil suit can be filed under the tort of medical negligence against Dr Lin
by the family members of the patient (Madden & Mcllwraith, 2013). In order to file a suit
under medical negligence against the doctor few thing are required to be shown on the part of
the plaintiff (Forrester & Griffiths, 2010). Firstly, it must be shown that the medical
practitioner owned obligation of care towards patient and secondly, it must be shown that
there was a breach of such obligation of care by the doctor by not obtaining valid consent
either by the family member or by the patient (Zhao, 2013).
There is a presumption in law and medical practice that, unless otherwise
demonstrated all major are capable to give consent or to refuse treatment (Forrester &
Griffiths, 2011). Until all appropriate medical information concerning the disease and therapy
of the patient has been provided to the latter, the medical practitioner must not consider the
individual lacking ability. Guidelines regarding decision-making about the treatment and care
for patients who are incapable to provide consent are contained in The Mental Capacity Act
2008 (Chapter 177A). This guideline aims to address the necessity to take decision on behalf
of the patients who are not capable to give the same or take decision on their own (Dimond,
2016). It is essential to respect the autonomy of patient and seek their approval to treatment;
imposing upkeep or therapy on individuals without regard for their desires and the right to
self- willpower is immoral and contrary to clinical values (White, McDonald, & Willmott,
2014).
1

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
In general, doctors owe lawful duty towards their patients. In the case of R v Bateman
(1925) 94 LJKB 791, the main issue was whether the medical practitioner was capable of
transferring the patient to the infirmary even though she was discovered unsuitable for
surgery and did after two days. Furthermore, the other issue was the unlawful liability of the
doctor for the demise of the complainant due to internal ruptures. It was held by the tribunal
that in order to prove criminal liability for the death by the negligence, it had to be proved
that the doctor had an obligation of care for his patient, that such duty was not satisfied,
inability to fulfill his duty resulted in homicide and gross negligence in meeting the mens rea
element of the crime.
Likewise, in order to prove case in the given situation, in order to show that doctor
owned duty of care toward patient, Adam, Sue and Bryan requires to show that the proper
procedure to obtain was not followed by the doctor. In addition, the doctor did not disclose
the likely effects of the surgery to the patient relatives. The legal and medical presumption,
however, is that, unless otherwise proved, all majors can agree or refuse therapy. While as, in
situations where approval cannot be given by the patient, consensus must be taken from the
patient's close relatives.
According to sec 92 of Penal Code of Singapore, if the medical practitioner performs
the surgery in good faith and for the patient’s benefit, he cannot be kept responsible for
negligence (O'regan, 2019). As in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582, court held that a medical practitioner is not negligent if he
operates in accordance with such a procedure simply because there is body of view that
would hold the opposite view. This case is also termed as Bolam Test. Likewise, in the given
situation, the doctor may say that he performed the surgery in the patient’s good faith and
with the patient’s proper approval and that, he was not negligent as stated in the bolam case.
Ethical Issue
Clinical ethics contains examining a specific issue, usually a clinical scenario, and
using values, evidence and logic to determine the best course of action (Beauchamp &
Childress, 2009). Most ethical issues are comparatively easy, such as determining correct
from wrong. Others, however, may also be more confounding, such as selecting between two
2

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
rights-two beliefs that dispute-with each other or selecting between two separate assessment
structures, such as the patient versus the doctor (Campbell, 2013).
Many ethical specialists recommend that four basic principles or values should be used to
identify ethical issues. Autonomy, justice, benevolence and non-benevolence are the main
four ethical principles to deal with ethical issues. Patients are entitled to exact and sufficient
information to determine their own decisions in medical management. Patient autonomy
generally relates to obtaining patient approval before treatment. The patient’s autonomy
refers to, that the patients consent must be obtained prior to the surgery, which must be
voluntary given and the patient know all the details relating to such treatment. The Singapore
Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines state that doctors should: treat patients
with kindness, poise, appreciation and respect, maintain their right to appropriate information
and their right to self-determination (Joly & Knoppers, 2014). Medical ethics has switched to
empiricism and the empirical evaluation of the four principles in the fresh medical ethics is a
significant task. Before undergoing such treatment or surgery, an important element of patient
autonomy is to guarantee that patients give their needed approval to any treatment or surgery.
This involves people who have recognized and understood the related benefits and risks of
creating voluntary decisions about their medical care. Likewise, in the given situation, the
patient verified the surgery by shaking her head at various instances. As the doctor obtained
the consent, thus the doctrine of patient autonomy applies here.
The other principle of bioethics is the notion of benevolence, which relates to the
given situation. The notion of benevolence includes a person doing good or what is going to
further the patient's advantage, other factors being equivalent. The two concepts are focused
on the fundamental meaning of what is in the patient's concern. This concept is intended to
promote the patient's benefit for the useful necessity (Dhai & Jan McQuoid-Mason, 2010). A
doctor must bring into consideration different social contracts concerning the advantage of
the patient, the standard of care in the profession, what the patient or his surrogate agrees to,
in accordance with the well-versed consent norms. In the given situation, doctor operated the
patient in good faith and for the benefit of the patient.
The main dispute can arise among the stakeholders and the other person. The family
members of the patient can assert that prior to the operation consent form was not filled and
even consent was not obtained by the relatives of the patient as the patient was unable to give
consent. Whereas medical staff can assert that doctrine of patient autonomy was followed by
3

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
obtaining the consent of patient. The doctor may also assert that what he did was to the
patient's advantage. While the family members may argue that the surgery may be delayed as
doctor was conscious of the patient's circumstances, the doctor has ignored such reality.
Kerridge's ethical decision-making model provides a systematic method to addressing
ethical dilemmas (Kerridge, Lowe, & Stewart, 2013). Model Kerridge offers different
techniques to solve ethical problems. The first technique according to this model is through
mediation process to fix disputes between clinical experts and patients or their families. The
expertise settles in this conflict between both the parties. However, if this method does not
resolve the conflict, the aggrieved may sue the other party. The other way to fix the parties
dispute is by seeking consultation on clinical ethics by consultants, which improves the
performance of ethical decision-making.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that patient’s autonomy plays an important role in health care.
Prior to operating patient, it is the responsibility of doctors and other medical attendants to
obtain consent of the patient. According to the abovementioned guidelines, authority has been
given to the doctors to take decision in good faith on patient’s behalf as per the seriousness of
the patient’s condition. If a medical practitioner has behaved negligently, to hold him
responsible, it must be demonstrated by adequate evidence, beyond reasonable doubt and by
evidence that objectively depicts the misuse of privileges or disregards the professional
liabilities expected by all certified medical practitioners. However, issues can be settled
through different techniques in event of dispute between the parties as described in the
Kerridge et all (2013) model.
4

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
Bibliography
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Campbell, A. (2013). Bioethics: The Basics. Abingdon-on-thames: Routledge.
Dhai, A., & Jan McQuoid-Mason, D. (2010). Bioethics, Human Rights and Health Law:
Principles and Practice. South Africa: Juta Law.
Dimond, B. C. (2016). Legal Aspects of Mental Capacity: A Practical Guide for Health and
Social Care Professionals. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Forrester, K., & Griffiths, D. (2010). Essentials of Law for Health Professionals. London:
Elsevier Health Sciences.
Forrester, K., & Griffiths, D. (2011). Essentials of Law for Medical Practitioners. London:
Elsevier Health Sciences.
Joly, Y., & Knoppers, B. M. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Medical Law and Ethics.
Abingdon-on-thames: Routledge.
Kerridge, I., Lowe, M., & Stewart, C. (2013). Ethics and Law for the Health Profession.
Washington: Federation Press.
Madden, B., & Mcllwraith, J. (2013). Australian Medical Liability. New York: LexisNexis
Butterworths.
O'regan, K. M. (2019). Law and Consent: Contesting the Common Sense. Abingdon-on-
Thames: Routledge.
White, B., McDonald, F. J., & Willmott, L. (2014). Health Law in Australia. New York:
Thomson Reuters.
Zhao, X. (2013). The Duty of Medical Practitioners and CAM/TCM Practitioners to Inform
Competent Adult Patients about Alternatives. Berlin: Springer Science & Business
Media.
5

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
6