More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
Psychiatric harm
The dubious character of nervous shock claims received strong criticism in the past and is still not fully recognised in the present. (Teff. 1998; 92) The main reason underpinning hostile attitude to review the claims is the uncertai...
... middle of paper ...
...laims generated by genetic technology, 1st ed., Routledge, Oxon
Journal Articles
• Atiyah, P. (1967) Negligence and Economic Loss, Law Quarterly Review, 83, 270
• Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383
• Hoffmaster, B. (2006) What Does Vulnerability Mean? , Hastings Center Report 38, 42, 36
• Lamont, W.D. (1941) Justice: Distributive and Corrective, Philosophy,16, 61, 11
• Mullender, R & Speirs, A (2000) Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, and the Altruism Principle, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20,4, 645
• Teff, H. (1998) Liability for Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Harm: Justifications and Boundaries, The Cambridge Law Journal 57,1, 92
• Weinrib,E.J. (2002) Corrective Justice in a Nutshell, University of Toronto Law Journal,52, 1
Gray, J. /O'Reilly, R. (2009): Supreme court of Canada's "Beautiful Mind" case. In: International journal of law and psychiatry, Vol. 32, Issue 5, pp. 315-322.
Forcing someone to take medication or be hospitalized against their will seems contrary to an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, however, the issue becomes complicated when it involves individuals suffering from a mental illness. What should be done when a person has lost their grasp on reality, or if they are at a risk of harming themselves or others? Would that justify denying individuals the right to refuse treatment and issuing involuntary treatment? Numerous books and articles have been written which debates this issue and presents the recommendations of assorted experts.
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
Melissa J. Ganz’s essay, “Carrying On Like a Madman: Insanity and Responsibility,” reads Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde through a new historical lens, looking at the novel alongside medico-legal debates about insanity in Victorian culture, as well as Stevenson’s own career in the law. She argues that while other scholars have examined criminality in the novel, they have ignored the legal questions Jekyll’s “madness” brings up. The M’Naghten case of 1843 deemed a person legally irresponsible for their actions if, because of a mental disease, they were unable to perceive the nature of their acts or know that they were wrong. The idea of insanity sparked debates between jurists and doctors. Early psychiatrists,
The case of “Stanton v Callaghan” confirms the existence of immunity from suit for expert witnesses in court cases involving negligence during “1998” as dictated by (Bailii.org, 1998). This case occurred prior to the Jones v Kaney case, which was argued for during 2011. In the Stanton v Callaghan case, the plaintiff, Mr Stanton, approached a structural engineer, Mr Callaghan, to prepare a report on the damaged property, stating that the work carried out previously, with the agreement of the insurers, was not appropriate because it feel apart, so that he could claim for a sum of money from the insurance company to carry out the total underpinning work for the property....
Abelson, Reed. "Lacking Rules, Insurers Balk at Paying for Intensive Psychiatric Care." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. .
Torrey, E. F. (2008). The insanity offense: How Americas's failure to treat the seriously mentally ill endangers its citizens. New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
The relationship between motive and consequence is a complex one, and is made even more debatable when context becomes involved. Throughout our judicial history, the line between responsibility and exemption remains razor-thin in its subjectivity. If a woman murders her husband, but was abused by him for years, why is this considered different from a murder where the perpetrator wasn’t abused? We take these mitigating factors into account in court, but they present a unique problem. How much and which extenuating circumstances are enough to change the conviction? Precedents are continually being set as new mental conditions are discovered or gain new validity, so we must be able to discern the difference between defenses that are legitimate, and the Twinkie defenses. Twinkie defenses are those, which carry no reasonable justification for diminishing the mental capacity of the defendant. The ambiguity of what we know of the mind creates this conflict, so it is important that we consider the context with care.
Also, social psychologists have long been concerned in when and why some individuals help others while some decline to help. Although the evidence for the inhibitory effect confounding, there are also counter-examples which exemplifies individuals demonstrating pro-social behavior in the presence of others. Hence, while the bystander effect can have a negative impact on prosocial behavior, altruism and heroism, researchers have identified factors that can help people overcome this predisposition and increase the probability that they will engage in helping act. Lantane and Darley (1968) proposed a five-step psychological process model to account for the bystander effect. These processes include observing that a critical situation is current, interpret the circumstance as a crisis, generate a feeling of individual obligation, believe that we have the adequate skills necessary to succeed, and finally reaching a conscious decision to render help (hellen et al )
Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed.
Involuntary psychiatric treatment is a very serious topic that needs to be thought about seriously. The two psychiatrists that will be analyzed within this paper are Thomas Szasz and Paul Chodoff’s. Both articles begin to deal with the issue of involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill and show the flaws within the commitment. Thomas Szasz believes that hospitalizing a person for no apparent reasons is wrong, but believes that if they are attempting to hurt themselves that they should be hospitalized. On the other hand, Paul Chodoff believes that the standard set to commit a person involuntarily to a hospital is wrong. He also believes that committing people on this basis of this kind of danger are wrong.
In the case of D’orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) the court held that under common law advocates are immune from claims of negligence that are relative to their conduct inside of court, and those out of court which directly relate to in court proceedings. For all other conduct outside of court however, advocates are liable for duty of care. This is because if such collateral or retaliative litigation were allowed then this would adversely affect the administration of justice. Likewise, some government agencies as well as police are protected under certain circumstances from negligence claims. Examples of such instances may be observed in Sullivan v Moody (2001) and Tame v New South Wales (2002). In Sullivan v Moody (2001) the court held that medical practitioners should not be held liable for reparations brought about by a third party because their duty to patients must be fulfilled without the threat of secondary negligence claims. Similarly in Tame v New South Wales (2002) the court the held that police officers should be exempt from claims of negligence pertaining to police investigating crimes and recording relevant material, regardless of its effect on pertinent persons because it is an administrational requirement of the profession. Others protected with immunity from negligent litigation include; but are not limited to rescuers; as in Chapman v Hearse 1961 , good Samaritans; protected under section 31 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , volunteers undertaking ‘community work’; part IX Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , blood donors and food donors; protected under section 135 of the Health Act 1958 (Vic) and section 31E of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
... (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
Susanne tried unsuccessfully to hurt herself and was not admitted to the medical hospital for a 72-hour psych hold. She was released back into the custody of her family. There appeared to be no follow up treatment from the hospital or medical organization that helped thwart the suicide attempt. Susanne was released back into the care of her family without the issuance of a case worker or without referral to external resources to help with her situation. Ultimately, she was sent to a bias family friend to receive treatment for her condition. (Mangold, 1999)
It is apparent that insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility share similarities and differences in their range of application and in definition. Insanity and automatism are most similar in that they both are full defences (with different outcomes) which exist when a defendant does not have the necessary actus reus or mens rea, whereas diminished responsibility is a partial defence which only applies to murder. The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defences. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.