Dr. James Graves who was found guilty of manslaughter has been sentenced to nearly 63 years in prison. Dr. Graves was convicted by a Milton, Fla. jury of manslaughter and racketeering in connection with the overdose deaths of four patients for whom he had prescribed OxyContin and other drugs. Graves is the nation’s first doctor to be found guilty in such a case and has set a precedent. Currently, in different areas of the country, many doctors are being prosecuted for what the government claims to be manslaughter. Now if a patient dies of misusing a drug the fingers will be pointed at the doctor instead of the patient, when in reality, it was the patient who did not use the drug for medicinal purposes, who became addicted to the drug, and who sold the drugs for profit. Hence, doctors are faultless and should not be criminally prosecuted for acts like these.
In the case of Dr. Graves, a pain management specialist, he gave out his prescriptions recklessly or to anyone who was willing to pay. The prosecutors in the case charged that Dr. Graves recklessly wrote prescriptions to anyone willing to pay for an office visit without asking the proper pre-prescribing questions, he endangered their lives which caused their deaths. “Dr. Graves argued that he followed medical protocols and legitimately prescribed OxyContin and other pain medication to patients he saw in his office. If the patients would have taken the medications as prescribed, they would not have died, he argued.” The jury went in favor of the prosecutor’s side.
The drug OxyContin that Dr. Graves has been prescribing to his patients is a very powerful pain killer. “OxyContin contains oxycodone, a very strong narcotic pain reliever similar to morphine. OxyContin is designed so that the oxycodone is slowly released over time, allowing it to be used twice daily. You should never break, chew, or crush the OxyContin tablet since this causes a large amount of oxycodone to be released from the tablet all at once, potentially resulting in a dangerous or fatal drug overdose.” Many of Dr. Graves’ patients have been doing such thing as breaking the tablets and chewing them or cooking them and then injecting them into their body, which is lethal. It is not the doctor’s fault if their patient uses the painkiller as a lethal drug. The doctor doesn’t intend for them to use the drug in such harmful ways.
Given the difficulties in the present tort system, we often become victims of the failures of medicine as opposed to beneficiaries of its many successes. Physicians have lost in that they have changed, limited, or closed their practices after having spent the most vigorous years of their lives training for such work. Patients have lost in that the physicians of their choice, with whom they have developed trusting relationships, are no longer available to care for them. It is certain that the system requires sensible reform (p.525).
In the case of Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction, the main issue present was the medical negligence demonstrated by the staff of the medical clinic at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards the inmate Tomcik. Specifically, nonfeasance, or the “failure to act, when there is a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 192), was displayed when the employees at the medical clinic failed to give immediate medical attention to Tomcik when she continually signed the clinic list and “provided the reason she was requesting
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
Medical malpractice has been a controversial issue in the healthcare setting for centuries. Apparently, there are laws to protect patients’ from medical mistakes and errors that are the result of negligence. After researching various laws and medical liability cases based on allegations of negligence, this paper will discuss and provide details on the medical malpractice case of Dorrence Kenneth versus Charleston Community Memorial Hospital. The case analysis will briefly explain information from the beginning to end, including: laws that were violated, codes in the healthcare industry that were breached by the physician and Charlesto...
An ethical dilemma that is currently happening in the medical field regards pain management. Doctors and other medical professionals are faced with this ethical decision on whether to prescribe strong pain medication to patients who claim to be experiencing pain, or to not in skepticism that the patient is lying to get opioids and other strong medications. “Opioids are drugs that act on the nervous system to relieve pain. Continued use and abuse can lead to physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms,” (Drug Free World Online). Opioids are often prescribed to patients experiencing excruciating pain, but doctors are faced with prescribing these drugs as an ethical issue because only a patient can measure the pain they are in, it is simply impossible
He said, “Studies of specific types of error, too, have found that repeat offenders are not the problem. The fact is that virtually everyone who cares for hospital patients will make serious mistakes, and even commit acts of negligence, every year. For this reason, doctors are seldom outraged when the press reports yet another medical horror story. They usually have a different reaction: This could be me. The important question isn’t how to keep bad physicians from harming patients; it’s how to keep good physicians from harming patients” (658). Like Gawande asked—how do you keep good physicians from harming patients? Even the best of doctors and surgeons manage to make mistakes that led to being sued or even worst—they get to experience the death of their
Painkillers have been used for many years, and they have been beneficial to many. But one that recently took the market has been the topic of many controversial discussions. Oxycodone has always been used in modern medicine but in small amounts. OxyContin contained a higher amount of oxycodone than most opiate based pain killers, the weakest dose of OxyContin had double the amount found in said painkillers (Meier 12). This lead to the spread of abuse and addiction towards the drug. And a medicine made to do nothing but help became the subject of overdose and death. The creation of OxyContin was a triumph for modern medicine and a halo of light to people with chronic pains, but this drug now seems to carry a trail of addiction and abuse along with it.
In 1999 a well known physician, Jack Kevorkian, was convicted of second degree murder. One might think that Kevorkian committed the terrible crime of murdering someone, but that is actually far from the truth. Kevorkian was convicted because of something a little unusual; he helped a patient with assisted suicide. Alexander Stingl, a sociologist and science historian, and M. Lee, authors of “Assisted Suicide: An Overview,” define assisted suicide as “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication.” Kevorkian was convicted because as of right now, assisted suicide is illegal in the United States with the exceptions of Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Huge controversy rose over this case because some feel assisted suicide is a civil right whereas others feel it is unnecessary. Assisted suicide is a practice that has long been debated.
In August of 2001 Robert Ray Courtney was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri and charged with diluting drugs used to treat cancer patients. Courtney’s actions not only violated criminal and civil laws but they shattered the ethical code and the oath he took as a licensed pharmacist. His actions left many people wondering why anyone would commit such a horrible act, let alone a trusted pharmacist who was providing medication to patients whose very lives depended on him doing his job.
By examining the justifications behind the death penalty and the human rights criminals retain upon being convicted of a felony, we were unable to deduce any legitimate grounds upon which physicians, or any health personnel, should be excluded from participating in executions. While some physicians would argue that participation by doctors in administering the death penalty amounts to a betrayal of the very precepts of medicine, I have attempted to provide an alternate perspective on the situation. Just as no doctor should be compelled to assist in an execution, no doctor should be banned from doing so, either.
The Lewis Blackman Case: Ethics, Law, and Implications for the Future Medical errors in decision making that result in harm or death are tragic and costly to the families affected. There are also negative impacts to the medical providers and the associated institutions (Wu, 2000). Patient safety is a cornerstone of higher-quality health care and nurses serve as a communication link in all settings which is critical in surveillance and coordination to reduce adverse outcomes (Mitchell, 2008). The Lewis Blackman Case 1 of 1 point accrued
One must evaluate all parties involved. It can be argued that do to the lack of documentation or communication of the physician this was an act of negligence. A jury can decide that lack of documentation is sufficient evidence in finding a physician guilty of negligence (Pozgar, 2009). When we look at the role of the defendant which was the pharmacist not the physician his duty goes above just filling prescriptions, the duty of a pharmacist is to monitor the patient’s medication. In order for him to have achieved this properly he should have made sure he contacted the physician for further information even if the physician failed to communicate with him. Because of his actions the plaintiff is holding the pharmacist accountable for his treatment and that is not where all of the blame should be consumed. The argument that can be made for the pharmacist is that the pharmacist acted within his scope of practice and left everything to the physician. This situation can easily be construed as, if the physician needed further medications or if there were any adverse reaction then he would have contacted the pharmacist. Once again the prosecutor may argue that the pharmacist had a duty to follow up on any treatment that he provided to a patient. These arguments would be the most persuasive. These are the key elements in determining the case being argued. For example the pharmacist not following up with the patient’s physician may be
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
A physician was accused of professional misconduct for having his office nurse sign her name to his preprinted prescription forms for medications that the physician prescribed for his patients. The physician did not delegate any medical discretion to the nurse; in fact, it was the physician who determined the type of medication, administration, strength, and other particulars of the prescription the patient was to be given. The state board of nursing charged the nurse with professional misconduct for agreeing to sign these prescriptions.
The morals of euthanasia have become unclear in that cases that once seemed “black and white” have expanded into the “gray area,” where euthanasia is highly debatable (Pawlick and DiLascio 2). Furthermore, People in depression often look to suicide as a resolution for their emotional struggle. This blurs the line that doctors must use to determine whether or not one is in a reasonable state to request such a procedure as euthanasia. If the doctor refuses, they could be sued for refusal of medical treatment, but if they don’t, they could be charged with murder (Pearson 5). This describes how cases in which a patient has requested euthanasia have various issues that could possibly permit such a procedure, such as an illness that could leave them paralyzed or dead in the future, but these issues are not enough to permit euthanization without deeper questioning. Also, if later it is found that the procedure was unnecessary for the patient, the physician or physicians who performed the procedure will indefinitely be imprisoned for their actions. Euthanasia is often argued against because it violates the Hippocratic oath, which includes “promises not to provide deadly medicine” to patients, no matter their request or appeals (Newton 1). The Hippocratic oath defines what is and what is not an ethical medical professional, and is used