Healthcare Ethics: Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Duty to Warn

This assignment addresses legal and ethical issues in healthcare, specifically focusing on a case study involving violations of beneficence and non-maleficence at Michael Reese Hospital. The student identifies that the hospital violated ethical principles by providing potentially harmful treatment (X-ray therapy) without patient benefit and by failing to promptly communicate the risks associated with the treatment. The assignment highlights the violation of the Duty to Warn, a legal concept requiring healthcare professionals to inform patients of potential treatment risks. The student then suggests recommendations to prevent such incidents, including the implementation of evidence-based practice, careful evaluation of treatment efficacy, and improved patient-centered communication to ensure informed consent and patient autonomy. References to the AMA Code of Medical Ethics and relevant literature are included to support the analysis and recommendations.

Running head: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN HEATHCARE
LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE
Question 1: The key ethical principles violated in this case are ‘beneficence’ and
‘non-maleficence’. Beneficence implies the ethical compliance of clinicians and physicians to
administer healthcare interventions which are of benefit to patients. Non-maleficence implies
an ethical consideration of clinicians and physicians to administer healthcare interventions
which are least harmful to the patient (Bronzino& Peterson, 2016). In this given incidence at
the Michael Reese Hospital, not only was beneficence violated by providing a treatment
without any such benefit to patients like Joel Blaz, but also violated ethical principles of non-
maleficence of ensuring minimization of harm by not promptly communicating the evidence
linking X-ray treatment and tumour development in such patients.
This incident also violates medical ethical principles III and V postulated by the
American Medical Association (AMA, 2019) which necessitates physicians to act in the best
interests of patients and communicate healthcare information, relevant to the needs of the
patient. Legally, this incidence is a key example of the violation of the Duty to Warn, a law
of torts which necessitates healthcare professionals to warn patients of the potential of harm
associated with a treatment or health behaviour. This is law was violated in this incidence
since despite possessing the opportunity, Dr Arthur Schneider did not adequately inform Blaz
of the possible implications of X-ray therapy (Mullaley, 2017).
Question 2:A key measure which could have been taken to prevent such an incidence
is the AMA’s recommendations engage in evidence-based practice, which includes weighing
the effectiveness of a healthcare interventions (such as X-ray treatment) against the best
available evidence, prior to its implementation (Herbst et al., 2017). Another key measure
which should have been administered is prompt patient centred communication which
involves clearly communicating to patients like Blaz on possible health consequences based
on evidence and inquiring about their opinion rather than merely transferring the burden of
care to patients despite having no fault of their own (Eyal et al., 2019).

2LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE
References
AMA. (2019). AMA Code of Medical Ethics. Retrieved 30 August 2019, from
https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/ama-assn.org/files/corp/media-browser/principles-of-
medical-ethics.pdf?source=post_page.pdf.
Bronzino, J. D., & Peterson, D. R. (2016). Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Medical
Technology. In Tissue Engineering and Artificial Organs (pp. 1259-1266). CRC
Press.
Eyal, G., Sabatello, M., Tabb, K., Adams, R., Jones, M., Lichtenberg, F.
R., ...&Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2019). The physician–patient relationship in the age of
precision medicine. Genetics in Medicine, 21(4), 813.
Herbst, J. L., Richards, V. E., Schramm, M. E., & Mattie, A. (2017). First Amendment
Protection of Evidence-Based Promotion of Prescription Drugs: A Study of Published
Clinical Evidence Supporting Off-Label Promotion in the USA. Pharmaceutical
Medicine, 31(5), 309-315.
Mullaley, C. (2017). Washington Supreme Court Holds that Medical Device Manufacturers
Have a Duty to Warn Hospitals–Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. 1. American Journal
of Law and Medicine, 43(1), 165.