Court Case: Administrator Vs. Jose Vega

Ian Shine, Administrator vs Jose Vega & another touches on a very delicate issue. The right of the patient to refuse treatment and the responsibility of the physician to administer treatment. The right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment should always be respected even if the physician assumes the situation to be life threatening. In this case, Dr. Vega actions cannot be justified. Dr. Vega never discussed the risk or the benefits of intubation with Catherine 2(patient). Even if Catherine was believed to be incompetent to consent, Dr. Vega should have petitioned consent from Catherine’s sister, who was present at the time, he did not. As a result, Catherine was restrained and forced to receive a treatment that she as a competent adult had objected to.

Under the doctrine of informed consent a physician has the duty to disclose to the competent adult patient sufficient information, whether to give or withhold consent to a medical procedure “Norwood Hosp v.

Munoz, supra at 123. In this case, Dr. Vega did not follow proper protocol. Consequently, the risk or benefit of intubation was never discussed with the patient. Catherine was administered two blood oxygen test. After the second blood gas test, results became available showing Catherine’s condition had improved. Dr. Vega testified that the results, even if he had read them(he had not) would not have changed his decision to intubate Catherine.

Catherine was not unconscious or unable to give consent. Dr. Vega Stated himself under oath that Catherine exercised her right to refuse medical treatment. Even if Dr. Vegas professional assessment of Catherine deemed her incompetent to make decisions regarding her treatment, consent should have been requested from her sister Anna, who was present. Therefore, receiving consent from a relative would be more reliable considering the consent of an unconscious

patient.
Patient consent is necessary to the belief that all patients have a free will to their health. It is up to the patient to decide what treatments are to be done after it is explained to them. It states that Catherine was “traumatized” by her experience with Dr. Vega, and did not want to seek medical attention for any health related problems. She was in fear of hospitals because Dr. Vega was not aware of her privacies by not following her consent.
There was some communication error involving Dr. Vega and Catherine’s father Dr. Shine. As stated in the case, Dr. Shine knew thoroughly of Catherine’s condition because he treated her when she was a child. Anna called Dr. Shine to clarify the situation between Catherine and the MGH. Controversially, Dr. Vega chose to act based on his own opinion, and not follow through with Dr. Shine.
The patients consent should be valuable to any medical personnel no matter what the circumstance may be. In Catherine’s case, Dr. Vega’s choice was detrimental to Catherine’s health as well as her mental state. The two years following the procedure showed that Catherine did not want to seek attention for any of her medical problems. Dr. Vega went above and beyond his duties by following a procedure based on his own opinion
The hospital staff had already determined the treatment that Catherine was to receive. The hospital clearly demonstrated poor communication skills when Catherine was apprehended by guards and put into four point restraints. The fact that she was tied down against her will could have been a reason for a fears.
In conclusion, Catherine was obviously competent, and able to give consent during the time of the argument with the MGH staff. The fact that she was even able to engage in such a “heated debate” should have been a factor in deciding treatment.