Exam # 40902600
The responsibility of Dr. Bob first and foremost is to save the life of the patient, Sally. With that being said the Doctor must also be aware of his legal responsibility. Among the Doctor’s legal obligations in the case of operating on a minor is the issue of informed consent. With Sally being a minor, Dr. Bob must seek her parents’ consent before he starts her surgery. In order for Sally’s parents’ to give informed consent, Dr. Bob is legally obligated to discuss the operation and also go over the risks and benefits. If after hearing what Dr. Bob discusses and agrees to the operation, they have given their “informed consent”. If Sally’s parents were unavailable to give informed consent, Dr. Bob should give whatever treatment is necessary to save her life according to the Hippocratic Oath.
Dr. Bob should do as Paula Patient asks and send all communications to her Post Office Box. The patient’s right to privacy has been established and if Dr. Bob sent anything to her home he would be legally responsible. Unless there are any other laws that override this privilege, the doctor patient privilege must not be broken. My answer would not be any different if she says it would endanger her.
Dr. Bob should not have given the file to the lawyer on the promise for an authorization. Under the HIPAA final privacy rule there must be a valid authorization by the patient before the release of any records. Dr. Bob has violated the patients’ privacy by releasing her entire file without an authorized release.
In both contributory and comparative negligence, the negligence of the defendant has been proven by the plaintiff. The main difference between these two is, comparative negligence will try to compensate the plaintiff for the portion of the injury. Contributory negligence is harsher, where the outcome is that no damages be awarded for the injury.
If the HIPAA rules are stricter, then you...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document