Legal and Ethical Principles in Health Care

Running head: HEALTHCARE
Legal and Ethical Principles in Health Care
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1HEALTHCARE
Introduction
The role of a healthcare professional is challenging from different angles. There are many ethical
and legal hurdles, which a healthcare professional has to face while treating a patient. It is
important for the healthcare professional to know about the legal and ethical consequences so
that the professional can practice within the legal boundaries (Gillers, 2014). The prime purpose
of this assignment is to identify the legal and ethical issues present in the case study analyze the
possible outcomes and understand the reason of those ethical conflicts.
Question 1
Consent is an important part of healthcare legal formality, as everyone has the right to
know about his or her health and body. The valid consent should include competence or the
capacity of the patient, the consent should be given voluntarily, the consent should cover the
entire procedure and finally the patient should be informed about the processes. During the heat
shock treatment, Richard refuses to be admitted to hospital as he refused to admit to the hospital.
Hence, in such scenario, the consent should be inclusive of factors that makes the patient avail
the healthcare for the betterment of his health. The consent should include statements of patient’s
family and close friends so that patient cannot refuse to take healthcare assistance (Sherlock &
Brownie, 2014). For this modified consent, legal department of the organization should be
approached. However, if the healthcare facility does not obtain prior consent from the patient,
the person who is striking, touching and moving is known to assault the person. However, the
healthcare facilities have several protections for any criminal act.

2HEALTHCARE
Question 2
As Richard denied the medical treatment from ambulance crew after his heat shock,
ethically he should not be provided with any healthcare facility, as he is not ready. However,
both the situations of accidents are different. In first case, after heat shock, Richard came to
normal state for a while and refused to acquire further treatment from any medical staff.
However, in the second accident, he was highly injured and was in coma during entire healthcare
process. hence, in that situation, his family and friends has the right to take decision.
Furthermore, according to the Australian health care law and statute, during emergency of saving
a person’s life, it is not important to take consent from Richard in this case (Holloway & Galvin,
2016).
Question 3
After the head injury, Richard 3was not been able to move, as he had multiple skull
injuries. Due to excess bleeding, he became senseless and therefore, no consent is needed for a
patient, who has impaired decision-making ability or who is struggling between life, death, and
need medical assistance as soon as possible. Hence, if the family member is present, they will be
given the consent to fill up. As Richard has multiple skull and face injury, the consent in this
condition should be inclusive of points which defines that hospital authority does not bear any
responsibility if the patient becomes unstable while surgery. This consent helps the hospital
authority to save themselves from any legal consequences that can arise while treating a serious
patient (Juurlink & Dhalla, 2016).
Question 4
According to the Queensland Legal Authority, if a patient is non-responsive of is
critically ill, then the consent will not be collected on the priority basis. The doctors are supposed

3HEALTHCARE
to carry out the treatment of the patient on priority and then the family member or friends will be
asked for the consent. If no one of the family is present in the healthcare system, then no consent
will be collected as the patient was admitted in the hospital in emergency health condition. In the
case of Richard as well, he was admitted to hospital after having severe head and facial fracture.
He was not in conscious state and no one accompanied him with the medical team. Therefore, no
consent will be taken from Richard. However, a consent is necessary before removing the life
supporting system. The first priority will be given to his family, as they are responsible to take
action about the patient (Jackson et al., 2014). To resolve the problem, IRAC framework will be
used. According to this framework, I stands for issue, R stands for rule, A stands for application
and C stands for conclusion (Burton, 2016). This problem solving technique can be used in case
of Richard, as both Meryl and Lucas were opposing each other for consent. This is an
organizational technique as well, that can be used to resolve problems analytically.
Question 5
In case of Richard, there were two decision makers present in the healthcare facility,
while taking decision about the patient’s health condition. The first one is the life partner Meryl
and his friend and crew manager Lucas. While taking decision for removing the life supporting
system, the doctors were to take consent and this was the moment, when these two disagree to
come to a point. In such situation, the doctor should take the consent from Meryl, as she was
with the patient from 22 years. However, ethically it is not correct, as it is not possible for the
hospital authority for keeping the patient on life supporting system for such longer time. Hence,
the doctor should take consent from the Meryl, as she is responsible to make decisions about
Richard (Halley, 2016).