Navigating Legal and Ethical Standards
Healthcare professionals don’t Explore key regulations and ethical principles to ensure compliance and patient safety. act in the interest of the patients yet additionally are challenged by the kind of legal and ethical codes that determine their obligation (Doherty, 2020). The case of Good Samaritan Home features how problematic assuming that certainly feasible it is to satisfy these standards in real life, and how this, in turn, makes even professional healthcare laborers inclined to wrong decisions. This assignment attempts to investigate the act of intentional torts, negligence, and respondeat superior doctrine, and to give the evidential approaches and the decreased malpractice claims in health care facilities.
Intentional Torts in Healthcare
The most notable example of intentional torts is the place where an individual deliberately creates a hurt another individual. In healthcare settings, several intentional torts can occur: In healthcare settings, several intentional torts can happen:
Assault: Asphyxiation entails the impression of threat and the chance of harmful or offensive contact by an offensive other, producing anxiety and fear. For example, a medical attendant who could give medication involuntarily to the patient would place themselves under the scrutiny of abuse in healthcare (Kaldjian, 2024).
Battery: Battery is committed in the case of foreseeable and nnon-consentedphysical contact that entails intimidation or injury of others. A given example is the situation where a clinician embraces medicine without appropriate assent or the assigned authority, which is the act of battery.
False Imprisonment: Illegal confinement is prescribed to be the situation where one’s chance of advancement is kept regardless of the lawfulness. In a climate of healthcare, this can be finished by keeping a patient in a room against their wish without being determined to accompany the reason.
Defamation: Defamation by spewing out false statements which, therefore, savagely spreads among many individuals. There are several remarkable ways wherein the specialist will treat their patients and, if they are harmed by this, the most ideal way to record a complaint about them is by slandering (verbally communicated defamation) or libeling (created defamation) them to another colleague or one of their patients.
Potential Intentional Torts in the Good Samaritan Case
The Good Samaritan Ward Nursing Officers could also have made a few intentional torts towards the patients. As an example, if they trapped a patient without necessary authorization or treated someone against their will, these professionals could have legal results from battery and false imprisonment (Hodge and Hubbard, 2020). Nevertheless, assuming somebody indulges in such kind of demeaning practice like spreading false reports about his colleagues or patients they may be condemned under the defamation offense.
The Ethical and Legal Implications of Intentional Torts in Healthcare
It is not only the battery and false imprisonment that is the chance of the intentional torts in the Good Samaritan case yet in addition the other issues of the cases. Defamation is another crucial misdeed that could happen because of an intentional act of the business. In any case, it is an ethical issue where if the nursing aides put down a collaborator or malign the reputation of an occupant for wrong reasons the result could be reputational injury and defamation. It may be a way that the trust dilemma would deteriorate in the already fragile healthcare institution, straightforwardly affecting patient care and staff morale.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Healthcare Settings
Similarly, intentional insult of emotional distress (IIED), is also a misdeed that could be tracked down in this case (Arora, 2022). This lawsuit shall equally apply to the nursing aides who have repeatedly behaved in an outrageous manner leading to serious emotional distress of the inhabitants and/or colleagues. In this case, the nursing aides could also be anticipated to take liability regarding the act of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
For example, determining that a patient has been threatened verbally or mental anguish through malicious intimidation tactics would satisfy the criteria for emotional distress. It is crucial to address these intentional torts from medical staff to enable a safe and deferential healthcare climate and to be accountable for the misconduct of these attendants, specialists, or pharmacists (Mahyut et al., 2023).
Respondeat Superior and Negligence
The legal idea of respondeat superior has implications for managers as they are vicariously liable for the acts of their representatives performed at work (Luskin, 2020) Ultimately if the nursing aides were indeed involved in the case of the Good Samaritan, the facility would be in charge for their supervision. Negligence comprises four parts: obligation/obligation HS 101 M1 Assignment Navigating Legal and Ethical Standards . The idea of obligation involves that of healthcare laborers delivering a sanctioned standard of care to the patients. Unduty satisfaction happens if this standard of care is not met leading to harm or injury. Causation shows here that infringement of obligation judgment essentially amounts to harm caused to the patient, whereas damages calculate the level of harm or injury.
Respondent Superior and Accountability in Healthcare Facilities
An idea of Respondent superior is the foundation of the Good Samaritan case applied to the facility where its laborers play a significant work in particular nursing aids are generally important. This standard in turn addresses the obligation of businesses to give adequate supervision and training to their staff, consequently safeguarding individuals against harm from other parties (Van Loo, 2020). Accordingly, the institution is liable for the behavior of the patient and how the nursing aids will outline the patient based on this accountability. The public authority support assistants’ unprofessional lead in “Good Samaritan” is manifested by the contravention of obligation because they abandon care.
The disregard of patients, misguided medication administration, and subpar treatment as compared to the one expected in healthcare facilities recommend that the trauma place personnel act contrary to the standard of care used in the healthcare industry. This issue, derogation of the obligation, coincided with the injuries sustained by individuals being alluded to, which encompassed the part of causation. A term of negligence is, therefore, seen in this case and it is a clear indication that there ought to be better supervision and adherence to professional standards so a superior healthcare facility is availed (Shenoy et al., 2021).
Is the Good Samaritan Case an Example of Negligence?
Indeed, the Good Samaritan case states the doctrine of blameworthy acts. By not adhering to the standards and care guidelines appropriately, the nursing aides caused damage to the inhabitants. They did two or three unacceptable maneuvers, for example, taking medications without arrangement, and inadvertently neglecting the patients, which were in disdain of their obligation of care and led to the results that were helpless to deteriorate.
Ethical Approaches and Decision-Making
Morals both as actions and conceptual cycles matter a ton because it based on individuals’ decisions, especially in medical fields where moral challenges are regular things (Doherty, 2020). In the Good Samaritan case, the pertinent ethical principles can be used in deciding what is the smart action to take with insights from the nursing aides’ rash lead. Using another ethical approach, for example, ideals ideals-based approach, which rotates around cultivating highminded qualities and character traits is another way ethicality can be reflected in business.
Upholding Ethical Principles and Accountability in Healthcare
In this framework, individuals, keeping that in mind, attempt to abide and act by the principles of compliance with the moral ideals, for example, genuineness, trustworthiness, and compassion In the quality of Good Samaritan Home, the aptitude and hard-working attitude of human beings should be taken into account. While addressing the disturbing nature of nursing aides’ acts, one could satisfy these ideals and act accordingly. The main will be sincerity and integrity, for the above is the ethos with which the health facility will operate. This would entail reporting the inappropriate behavior to the relevant authority. And ensuring that the framework is transparent and accountable within the (Robert et al.,2020).
Furthermore, from the viewpoint of utilitarianism as a practical strategy that assesses acts according to their outcomes, areas of solidarity for thinking can also be attained in this case. By weighing the potential repercussions of various actions, for instance, either against the misconduct or letting it fly, one can determine what course is ethically right. The case of Pip is in line with the consequentialist way of thinking as it puts the prioritization of patient safety and thriving over individual concerns or institution reputation at the front, pointing towards the need for ethical decisions in healthcare settings. Ethical approaches end up being vital and guiding frames in complex moral issues that a healthcare supplier may be facing at the day’s end and these moral principles have to be maintained and capable decisions made (Akdeniz et al., 2021).
Comparing Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance
The making of appropriately authorized actions is named as misfeasance (Akhtar 2020), then again, the making of unlawful acts takes place in malfeasance. Another kind of negligence from a laborer’s viewpoint is known as nonfeasance – which generally alludes to the representative’s failure to play out his/her obligation. In healthcare, misfeasance could be an off-base administration of medication, malfeasance could mean the faking of medical records, and nonfeasance – is the neglecting on the part of healthcare professionals to give qualified medical supervision.
Protecting Healthcare Professionals from Malpractice Claims
Healthcare professionals can safeguard themselves from malpractice claims by:
• Maintaining intensive documentation of patient care.
• Obtaining informed assent for strategies and treatments.
• Adhering to established shows and standards of care.
Conclusion
Understanding negligence, intentional torts, respondeat superior, and ethical decision-making is fundamental to ensuring value in healthcare as patients’ safety depends on their lives with healthcare attendants. This case of the Good Samaritan reminds us of the need to follow the brigades in solicitation to strengthen the framework that guarantees the safety of patients and their well-being and to safeguard healthcare professionals against liability. By adopting patient care as the main concentration, the healthcare laborers should steadfastly cling to ethical principles and in this way diminish the risks that may undermine the validity of such practice.
References
Akdeniz, M., Yardımcı, B., & Kavukcu, E. (2021). Ethical considerations at the end-of-life care. SAGE Open Medicine, 9, 20503121211000918. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121211000918
Akhtar, Z. (2020). Misfeasance, Criminal Negligence, and Official Liability. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 55, 533.
Arora, P. (2022). Criticism of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the ambient of tort law. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 4 Issue 4, 1.
Doherty, R. F. (2020). Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions – E-Book: Ethical Dimensions in the Health Professions – E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Hodge, S. D. J., & Hubbard, J. E. (2020). COVID-19: The ethical and legal implications of medical rationing. Gonzaga Law Review, 56, 159.
Kaldjian, L. C. (2024). Moral distress, conscientious practice, and the endurance of ethics in health care through times of crisis and calm. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 49(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad041
Luskin, R. (2020). Caring about corporate “due care”: Why criminal respondeat superior liability outreaches its justification. American Criminal Law Review, 57, 303.
Mahyut, S. M., Qi, A. Y. X., Ni, F. L. X., Yu, K. T. W., & Xuan, P. H. (2023). Addressing the Impact of Inappropriate Language in the Workplace: A Legal Perspective. 38–78. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-154-8_3
Robert, R., Kentish-Barnes, N., Boyer, A., Laurent, A., Azoulay, E., & Reignier, J. (2020). Ethical dilemmas due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Annals of Intensive Care, 10(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00702-7
Shenoy, A., Shenoy, G. N., & Shenoy, G. G. (2021). Respondeat superior in medicine and public health practice: The question is – Who is accountable for whom? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 17, 100634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100634
Van Loo, R. (2020). The revival of respondeat superior and evolution of gatekeeper liability. Georgetown Law Journal, 109, 141.
