Health Law and Ethics

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