More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Ethical legal principles and dilemmas related to healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36) Psychiatric harm The dubious character of nervous shock claims received strong criticism in the past and is still not fully recognised in the present. (Teff. 1998; 92) The main reason underpinning hostile attitude to review the claims is the uncertai... ... middle of paper ... ...laims generated by genetic technology, 1st ed., Routledge, Oxon Journal Articles • Atiyah, P. (1967) Negligence and Economic Loss, Law Quarterly Review, 83, 270 • Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383 • Hoffmaster, B. (2006) What Does Vulnerability Mean? , Hastings Center Report 38, 42, 36 • Lamont, W.D. (1941) Justice: Distributive and Corrective, Philosophy,16, 61, 11 • Mullender, R & Speirs, A (2000) Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, and the Altruism Principle, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20,4, 645 • Teff, H. (1998) Liability for Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Harm: Justifications and Boundaries, The Cambridge Law Journal 57,1, 92 • Weinrib,E.J. (2002) Corrective Justice in a Nutshell, University of Toronto Law Journal,52, 1
Gray, J. /O'Reilly, R. (2009): Supreme court of Canada's "Beautiful Mind" case. In: International journal of law and psychiatry, Vol. 32, Issue 5, pp. 315-322.
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
Melissa J. Ganz’s essay, “Carrying On Like a Madman: Insanity and Responsibility,” reads Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde through a new historical lens, looking at the novel alongside medico-legal debates about insanity in Victorian culture, as well as Stevenson’s own career in the law. She argues that while other scholars have examined criminality in the novel, they have ignored the legal questions Jekyll’s “madness” brings up. The M’Naghten case of 1843 deemed a person legally irresponsible for their actions if, because of a mental disease, they were unable to perceive the nature of their acts or know that they were wrong. The idea of insanity sparked debates between jurists and doctors. Early psychiatrists,
The case of “Stanton v Callaghan” confirms the existence of immunity from suit for expert witnesses in court cases involving negligence during “1998” as dictated by (Bailii.org, 1998). This case occurred prior to the Jones v Kaney case, which was argued for during 2011. In the Stanton v Callaghan case, the plaintiff, Mr Stanton, approached a structural engineer, Mr Callaghan, to prepare a report on the damaged property, stating that the work carried out previously, with the agreement of the insurers, was not appropriate because it feel apart, so that he could claim for a sum of money from the insurance company to carry out the total underpinning work for the property....
It was stated that whether or not people help depends on a series of interconnected events and decisions. They must first notice what’s happening, understand that it is an emergency and accept personal responsibility. When this fails to happen that is called the bystander effect (Carpenter & Huffman, 2008, p. 422).
Abelson, Reed. "Lacking Rules, Insurers Balk at Paying for Intensive Psychiatric Care." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. .
In the case of D’orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) the court held that under common law advocates are immune from claims of negligence that are relative to their conduct inside of court, and those out of court which directly relate to in court proceedings. For all other conduct outside of court however, advocates are liable for duty of care. This is because if such collateral or retaliative litigation were allowed then this would adversely affect the administration of justice. Likewise, some government agencies as well as police are protected under certain circumstances from negligence claims. Examples of such instances may be observed in Sullivan v Moody (2001) and Tame v New South Wales (2002). In Sullivan v Moody (2001) the court held that medical practitioners should not be held liable for reparations brought about by a third party because their duty to patients must be fulfilled without the threat of secondary negligence claims. Similarly in Tame v New South Wales (2002) the court the held that police officers should be exempt from claims of negligence pertaining to police investigating crimes and recording relevant material, regardless of its effect on pertinent persons because it is an administrational requirement of the profession. Others protected with immunity from negligent litigation include; but are not limited to rescuers; as in Chapman v Hearse 1961 , good Samaritans; protected under section 31 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , volunteers undertaking ‘community work’; part IX Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , blood donors and food donors; protected under section 135 of the Health Act 1958 (Vic) and section 31E of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
Torrey, E. F. (2008). The insanity offense: How Americas's failure to treat the seriously mentally ill endangers its citizens. New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Involuntary psychiatric treatment is a very serious topic that needs to be thought about seriously. The two psychiatrists that will be analyzed within this paper are Thomas Szasz and Paul Chodoff’s. Both articles begin to deal with the issue of involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill and show the flaws within the commitment. Thomas Szasz believes that hospitalizing a person for no apparent reasons is wrong, but believes that if they are attempting to hurt themselves that they should be hospitalized. On the other hand, Paul Chodoff believes that the standard set to commit a person involuntarily to a hospital is wrong. He also believes that committing people on this basis of this kind of danger are wrong.
The relationship between motive and consequence is a complex one, and is made even more debatable when context becomes involved. Throughout our judicial history, the line between responsibility and exemption remains razor-thin in its subjectivity. If a woman murders her husband, but was abused by him for years, why is this considered different from a murder where the perpetrator wasn’t abused? We take these mitigating factors into account in court, but they present a unique problem. How much and which extenuating circumstances are enough to change the conviction? Precedents are continually being set as new mental conditions are discovered or gain new validity, so we must be able to discern the difference between defenses that are legitimate, and the Twinkie defenses. Twinkie defenses are those, which carry no reasonable justification for diminishing the mental capacity of the defendant. The ambiguity of what we know of the mind creates this conflict, so it is important that we consider the context with care.
Also, social psychologists have long been concerned in when and why some individuals help others while some decline to help. Although the evidence for the inhibitory effect confounding, there are also counter-examples which exemplifies individuals demonstrating pro-social behavior in the presence of others. Hence, while the bystander effect can have a negative impact on prosocial behavior, altruism and heroism, researchers have identified factors that can help people overcome this predisposition and increase the probability that they will engage in helping act. Lantane and Darley (1968) proposed a five-step psychological process model to account for the bystander effect. These processes include observing that a critical situation is current, interpret the circumstance as a crisis, generate a feeling of individual obligation, believe that we have the adequate skills necessary to succeed, and finally reaching a conscious decision to render help (hellen et al )
Susanne tried unsuccessfully to hurt herself and was not admitted to the medical hospital for a 72-hour psych hold. She was released back into the custody of her family. There appeared to be no follow up treatment from the hospital or medical organization that helped thwart the suicide attempt. Susanne was released back into the care of her family without the issuance of a case worker or without referral to external resources to help with her situation. Ultimately, she was sent to a bias family friend to receive treatment for her condition. (Mangold, 1999)
This essay will give examples and discuss the factors which can affect bystander behaviour in various situations. Models explaining theories will be looked at along with various studies, as well as looking at the three social cognitive processes by Latane and Darley and explain how these were put together to propose a complex cognitive model. The essay will explain the Arousal cost reward model by Piliavin and Piliavin.
Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed.
On December 3, in full view of a number of witnesses standing within close proximity, Ki-Suck Han, a 58 year-old male entered into an altercation with Naeem Davis, a 30 year-old homeless male at the Times Square subway station. Han was pushed down into the tracks and then struggled and pleaded for help for what was reported to be a full 22 seconds, as witnesses watched, took pictures, and failed to come to his assistance (Petrecca & Eversley, 2012). The man was then hit by the approaching subway train as it dragged into the station. This is a sad example of the Bystander Effect which demonstrates that people are less likely to come to the assistance of another in an emergency situation when other bystanders are present and also perceived to be responsible and able to help (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012). Moreover, we are most of the time influenced by Social Loafing. Social loafing is the diffusion of responsibility among a group of people. When a group of people are perceiving an emergency situation, all of them tend to think that others are available to help. Social influence explains that people always look to others to evaluate a situation as a real emergency. We assume that others may know something that we do not know and we measure their reactions before we decide how we will respond. If we noticed that those around us are acting as if it is an emergency, then we will view the situation in the same way and act accordingly. However, if those around us are acting calm, then we may not realize the immediacy of the situation and therefore fail to respond appropriately. Maybe this is the answer to why people did not help the homeless who was attacked by the 58 year- old man. They failed to see the situation as a real emergency, and as a result they did not act