Duty Of Care Case Study

1220 Words3 Pages

The health care system within Australia is divided between two Government levels, the Commonwealth, and the State and Territories, which govern the policies and legislations of health care (Department of Health 2008). The states predominately revolve around providing health services within the public sector (National Health and Hospital Reform Commission 2009). Whereas the Commonwealth Government revolves around funding health services, such as funding support to the state for pharmaceutical reimbursements, free public hospital care and subsided age care for patients (National Health and Hospital Reform Commission 2009). Though the two levels of government allow for the distribution of health funding to be shared between them, this benefit …show more content…

This is often difficult to achieve due to level of understanding achieved by the patient, and their level of interest for the examination. In this case, the patient stated their disinterest in the examination and the risks associated to it. The case Rogers vs. Whitaker (1992), declares the duty to disclose information regarding the examination exists as a minimum legal obligation, regardless of the patients interest in the procedure. Therefore the need to explain to the patient the legal requirements and duty of care as a health professional is important as the patient is required to make an informed decision prior to undergoing an examination. Hence the need to explain to the patient that their decision to precede with the examination would be rendered meaningless if all relevant information to the procedure was not explained (Rogers v Whitaker 1992). Furthermore, due to the invasive nature of a hysterosalpingram, and the need to perform it transabdominally, it is often intrusive for the patient. Therefore the need to examination to the patient is required, as it can often be associated or construed with having sexual intentions, rather than the examination being performed in a professional manner (Australian Institute of Radiography 2007). The need to also explain the risks associated with the examination is recognized by law that it is the duty of doctor’s to inform a patient of material risks that could be inherited in the procedure, as the risks could attach significance, and result in the patients unwillingness to undergo treatment (Rogers v Whitaker 1992). Therefore the need for a doctor to fulfil their duty of care is required to limit harm suffered by a patient as a result of a doctor’s

Open Document