Introduction
Levy (2006) indicates that in recent decades, the emergence of public concern with regards to how medical practitioners handle their patients has been on the rise. This is attributed to the fact that the public has increased awareness with regards to medical law and they can clearly understand injuries and deaths that are caused by shear negligence or medical failure on the part of the medical practitioners.
Monico , Kulkarni, Calise & Calabro (2007) define a negligent action as “a tort which is a result of an individual carelessness in the sense that the individual fails to meet the requirements of performing their duty as a care giver to the patient and thus their actions result to the injury or death of the patient” (p.1). In this case, the practitioner does not neglect their duties intentionally and neither do they anticipate to cause any harm to the patient under their care. Therefore, negligence can be termed as a deviation from the norm.
On the other hand, gross negligence can be defined as the reckless disregard by a medical practitioner. This involves a situation whereby, the nurse or doctor is well aware of the consequences of his deliberate negligence but goes ahead to ignore the likely implications on the health status of the patient under their care. This type of medical failure is different from negligence to the extent of the intentional act regardless of the anticipated consequences. Therefore, if a patient sues a nurse or a doctor for gross negligence and proves their acts beyond reasonable doubt, such a patient is entitled to compensation.
Malpractice is a subset of negligence that takes into account the professional status of the accused. Therefore, malpractice results when a professional doctor, nurse or physician fails to exercise the degree of duty associated with their professional status. Thus they violate their duty to offer adequate services and care to their patients. For a medical professional to be accused of committing a medical malpractice, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the individual being accused owed them a duty of care and that the individuals failed to carry out their responsibilities. Further the plaintiff must prove that actual harm occurred and the core causation is due to the practitioner’s malpractice (Monico et al., 2007).
Rational for Decision
Based on the newspaper article, it is quite shocking for a patient to wake up one day and find out that his/her doctor amputated the wrong leg. The patient is in dare shock because he cannot comprehend that the care givers who are supposed to be fully aware of his condition and the procedures to be conducted can make a mistake so big that can make him become crippled for the rest of his life. Further, the hospital is yet to comment on this issue which according to me can be classified as a malpractice and not negligence as indicated in the newspaper.
The rational for this decision is based on the fact that a malpractice occurs when a professional fails to meet the average requirements of their profession as they go about their daily specialty (Slovenko, 2005). It is therefore improper and unethical that after five years of treatment, the doctors fail to deal with the problem at hand rather, they cause more harm to the patient.
The aspect of negligence cannot be considered for this case because negligence does not take into account the professional sense of the care giver. If the amputation occurred due to the negligence of an individual who was not obliged to work under the stipulated work conduct, then for such an instance, the case would have qualified to be considered as negligence. But since the doctors and the nurses in charge were obliged to offer a duty to the client and they failed to do so on the basis of failing to identify the right leg, then they neglected their duty to offer the right information with reference to the client’s case and as a result, the patient incurred an injury which was caused by their negligence to perform their duty as per the required standards of any profession in the medicine and nursing field (Monico et al., 2007).
Further the case cannot be classified under gross negligence because the plaintiff in this case Benson, would have to prove that the amputation of his leg was not just shear negligence or a malpractice but an intended action (Levy, 2006). Thus he would bear the burden of proving that the care givers were well aware of the fact that they were amputating the wrong leg during the event of the operation and they went ahead to do so disregarding his welfare and medical records.
Importance of Documentation
Documentation of such shortcomings is vital. This can be done in form of hospital records or even through peer reviews. The purpose of hospital records is to help the licensing bodies to keep track of the incidents and therefore evaluate the rationality of the hospital services to their clients. This would therefore help such a body form a case especially when high levels of negligence are conducted in any licensed medical premises. In most cases, such bodies may revoke a physician’s license for conducting any health care service for a particular time or forever depending on the extent of the allegations tabled against the medical practitioner (Monico et al., 2007).
Documentation of such will also help reduce the rate of negligence because the care givers will be more careful about the nature of treatment they offer and the applicability of the prognosis that they offer to their clients. This is because they become fully aware that their conduct is closely monitored and thus they would not be willing to compromise their jobs for careless mistakes.
With reference to this particular case, the reports indicate that the hospital has had many issues with workers union and nurse shortages. Again such information indicates the low level of professionalism and efficacy that the hospital has employed. Such complains are likely to compromise on the standards of health care that the hospital is offering and thus creating room for the few available health care providers to make more mistakes because of the large number of patients and data that they are supposed to comprehend on a daily basis.
Nursing Ethical Principles
If I was the nurse in this situation I would be guided by ethical principals such as the need to be beneficence which involves understanding that I owe each and every individual under my care a duty to tackle their medical needs efficiently and in a professional way (Slovenko, 2005). This would imply that I indicate and relay the required information that pertains to each individual patient. Further, I would counter check all the available information to make sure that the indicated situation of the patient is recorded accordingly. This way I would be able to avoid a situation like the Benson case and thus avoid causing any harm or injury to patients under my care.
Concerning Benson’s case, I would make sure that the documentation was proper in the sense that the particulars of the leg to be amputated are clearly identified in the medical report. This can be done through highlighting the specific leg with a highlighter or a different pen in the medical report in order to insist on the seriousness of the indicated information. This may involve being non maleficence thus striving to ensure that the appropriate information is relayed therefore leading to justice on the part of the patient and consequently to my practice as a nurse.
References
Levy, S. (2006). Criminal Liability for Medical Negligence. Medical Law, 25, 601-610.
Monico, E., Kulkarni, R., Calise, A., & Calabro, J. (2007). The Criminal Prosecution of Medical Negligence. Journal of Law, Healthcare & Ethics, 5(1), 1-14.
Slovenko, R. (2005). Malpractice, Non- Medical Negligence or Breach of Contract. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 445-466.