Addiction problems Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Addiction problems - Case Study Example Mrs. Smith was aged 85 and on 28 November 2009 was admitted to hospital with pneumonia. On 1st December 2009, she was being assisted by a nurse to get out of bed when she slipped on a wet floor and sustained a fractured neck of her right femur. This was treated surgically on 2 December 2009. She died of a pulmonary embolism following a deep vein thrombosis on 10 December 2009.One scenario is that the nurse could be sued for the fractured neck of the patient's femur. Another scenario is that the hospital might be sued for the fractured neck of the patient's right femur. The doctor could be charged with malpractice for the way in which he handled the pulmonary embolism for surgery. The hospital could be liable for the surgery gone wrong. Additionally, as a fifth scenario, the hospital might be liable for the patient's death, in which case, it would be a wrongful death lawsuit. As a sixth scenario, the hospital could get sued for negligence for the patient's death.The first scenario is that the nurse could be sued for negligence in the matter of the patient having fractured the neck of her femur. The nurse was supposed to be helping the patient avoid such a travesty. Since this accident happened on her watch, she would be liable. In negligence, the person preventing the wrong from happening to the other person has a duty of care. "Under the new rules, the existence of a duty states will depend on three factors: the foreseeability of damage occurring; the proximity of the relationship between the claimant and defendant; and whether it is just in the circumstances to impose a duty of care."1 From the nurse's point of view, since Mrs. Smith was aged 85, it should be a reasonable assumption to make that this nurse would have foreseen such an accident happening. Additionally, the nurse's proximity to the patient was such that she should probably have been aware of the patient's difficulty, although, proximity of the nurse to the patient would have to be established. Also, it is probably just to assume that the circumstances under which the nurse found herself required her to impose a duty of care. The second scenario is that the hospital could be sued for the patient's fractured femur. Obviously, this would probably not happen since the patient is already deceased, and litigation would obviously be moved to address the patient's death. In that case, the hospital could definitely be held liable for the patient's surgery having gone awry. After all, doctors are places that are supposed to help people get better, not allow them to pass away. Hospitals are technically supposed to be helping people. They are not necessarily liable for an unforeseen problem such as a pulmonary embolism, but it could be that the hospital's practices which were put in place had something to do with the patient's demise. If this was the case, the hospital could certainly be liable. The doctor could be charged with a malpractice suit due to negligence on his part if he knew that the procedure he used was not correct, or if he made a mistake during surgery. This is not necessarily what happened, but it is unsure. That is why, at the Inquest, it must be mapped out what needs to be found out in terms of evidence. The way the doctor handled the pulmonary embolism is sure to affect the outcome of the Inquest. Additionally, the hospital could be involved in a wrongful death lawsuit. This would be because the patient would not have had to have surgery if the patient had not slipped and fell due to the hospital staff's negligence. In this case, the hospital would probably take on the lawsuit and most likely win. Hospitals are notorious for doing this kind of thing. They are infamous for committing negligent acts and then sweeping them under the proverbial rug, hidden from the public's bird's-eye view.

American Government College Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

American Government College - Essay Example In the years since, the new battle has been fought on the front lines of Afghanistan and Iraq in the quest to rid the world of evil, but it has also been fought in the halls of Congress and the hallowed walls of the White House. Only there it was to ferociously argue about what the best course of action would be in the US-led battle on terror, but this time it would be to battle about who was 'right' and who was 'wrong'. Historically, the legislative body on Capitol Hill has been delegated the erroneous task of hashing through hour upon hour of complex debate on national and international policy. Afterwards, the Executive Branch is left with the task of executing their constitutional authority to either approve, or deny the efforts of the hill by means that have often been interpreted as not being devoid of self service in their own right. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, the next option for the US Government, as seen b