Introduction
When operating within the healthcare industry, it is important for health professionals to adhere to a set of legal and ethical standards that define their connection to the profession. The legal and ethical standards act as a set of rules that govern the overall performance of health professions with an aim of ensuring that they perform based on the expectations from their patients. However, one of the key challenges arising from these legal and ethical standards is that they tend to bring about a platform for conflicting expectations especially on matters associated the decision-making element. The perspective presented through the legal front may differ significantly compared to the perspective presented from the ethical front. That comes about due to varying expectations in terms of legal and ethical elements within the health care industry, which would bring about that platform for confusion on the part of the health professionals.
Description of the Conscience Clause Legislation
The conscience clause legislation refers to specific legal clauses within the constitution that create that avenue for health professionals not to offer specific medical services based on their moral or religious beliefs. The implementation of these clauses may lead to a situation where health professionals cannot be warranted to undertake medical procedures that would go against their moral or religious beliefs (Cherry, 2012). Some of the common procedures that fall within the conscience clause legislation include abortion, sterilization, and offering of contraception. That means that any health professional, operating within a jurisdiction with a conscience clause, is not mandated to offer all types of medical procedures due to the diversity in terms of religions (Richardson, Niens, Mawhinney, & Chiba, 2013). The health professional may also make the decision not to refer a patient to a provider that would offer such services, as this would go against his or her moral or religious belief.
Description of the Respondeat Superior
Respondeat superior refers to a clause in the constitution that holds an employer as being legally responsible for actions undertaken by their employees while operating within the scope of their employment. Respondeat superior is also referred to as a master-servant rule, which acts as a clear indication that the actions of the servant tend to have a direct impact on the patient within the legal perspective. In an example in health care, a health care facility may experience a legal suit arising from a situation where one of its employees creates a medical error. That means that the victim involved in the medical error would not have the mandate of holding the health care professional as being liable for the medical error. Instead, the victim would file a lawsuit against the health care facility attributed to the idea that the employee was operating within the confines of his or her job description leading to the occurrence of the error.
Description of the Scope of Practice
The scope of practice refers to a particular set of actions and procedures that a health care professional would strive to undertake as part of his or her professional expectations. However, the health professional may experience some form of limitation with regard to the professional license provided, which would define some of these actions and procedures depending on what the professional may have learned. In determining the scope of practice, one of the key aspects that professional bodies consider is the specifically demonstrated competence on the part of the health professional. That would mean that a health professional may show higher levels of competence in one area of the health industry, which would warrant his or her licensing for the same. That would also consider whether the professional has the requisite educational background to warrant the licensing.
Issues from Multiple Perspectives
In consideration of the three issues, highlighted above, it would be important to consider the different perspectives presented especially on the idea of how the issues impact different perspectives of the health care industry. The first perspective to consider is the health care professional, who is mandated with the task of ensuring that he or she provides patients with the best quality of treatment at all with an aim of achieving positive health outcomes. The issue associated with the conscience clause impacts health care professionals differently, as it provides them with that legal standpoint allowing them to practice within the healthcare industry without having to compromise on their moral or religious beliefs. One of the key elements of consideration in this clause is that it provides health professionals with the power allowing them to make the decisions on the medical procedures that they would feel comfortable in handling. In the event that a health professional does not feel comfortable in handling any given procedure due to the variation in terms of beliefs, he or she is protected within the confines of the law.
On the issue of respondeat superior, it is evident that health professionals play a central role in determining the overall liability on the part of the health facility based on their underlying actions. In the event that a health professional’s actions do not conform to the set policies and quality provisions, the health facility may have the option of having to hold the health professional as being liable for any negative outcomes. However, this would depend wholly on whether the facility has come up with specific policies that govern the overall process associated with service delivery on the part of its employees. Lastly, the issue of the scope of practice is a key aspect of consideration for health care professionals, as it acts as a determinant of their activities while in a given facility. Getting a license is important for health professionals, as it helps in ensuring that one is competent in his or her position as a health professional. That would help avoid instances where some of the professionals tend to provide services that they do not understand, which may bring about some form of negativity on the patient involved.
On the issue of respondeat superior, the patient’s perspective may remain as being somewhat positive, as the patient would be in a position to hold an employer as being accountable for any negative actions. That means that patients may find it easier in trying to confront the management within a given facility based on the negative actions of a given employee. In jurisdictions that have not implemented this clause, it becomes hard for a patient to seek for compensation due to negative outcomes of a given procedure due to lack of an effective connection between the patient and the employee. That means that the employee may not accept any form of liability for his or her actions regardless of the outcomes. On the issue of the scope of practice, patients may benefit from utilization of the scope of practice in the healthcare industry, as it creates some form of connection with regard to the capacities projected by individual health professionals.
Health professionals ought to acquire the required certification from different quotas including proper licensing as a way of showing that they have the capacity of delivering the best quality of medical services. From a patient’s perspective, that would act as a guarantee that the health professional involved would be in that basic position allowing him or her to deliver the best quality of services. Lastly, the issue associated with the conscience client may also be viewed from the perspective of legislators, who are the legal custodians of having to come up with such legislation. From the perspective of legislators, it is evident that their idea of having to implement this particular clause is to help in protecting health professionals by ensuring that experience positive moral convictions. The passage of such legislation focuses on protecting health professionals from the guilt that would come about based on their actions as part of their professional expectation. Some of these actions may go against their moral positioning, which would be about that element of guilt in the event that a professional would embark on the same.
The perspective of the legislator on the issue of respondeat superior is that it would help in protecting patients from any unwarranted actions that may contribute to negative outcomes. In cases where patients deal with medical errors, it is evident that some patients tend to lack the capacity allowing them to hold a particular health professional as being liable for the error. However, this is not the case when dealing with respondeat superior, as it provides the patient with a better opportunity of having to hold an entire health facility as being liable for an action attributed to one of its employees. The management may decide to settle such matters amicably as a way of protecting the overall image of the health facility, which would be viable for the patient involved in the case.
On the last issue, which is the issue on the scope of practice, legislators hold the view that implementation of policies that mandate health professionals to seek certification may help in protecting patients from unscrupulous health professionals. That would mean that a patient would be guaranteed of effective service delivery and safety among other aspects in dealing with a health professional that has all the necessary documentation. The concern raised by legislators in the implementation of such policies on the scope of practice is that some health professionals tend to lack the expected educational or professional experience to perform some of these procedures. Thus, creating specific provisions that would promote the need for certification would help in protecting patients from such health professionals. In addition, legislators also have the intention of creating specific provisions that would bring about confidence on the part of the patients based on the treatment that they receive from health professionals.
Opinion on Conscience Clause Legislation
References
Cherry, M. J. (2012). Conscience clauses, the refusal to treat, and civil disobedience—practicing medicine as a Christian in a hostile secular moral space. Christian Bioethics, 18(1), 1-14.
Richardson, N., Niens, U., Mawhinney, A., & Chiba, Y. (2013). Opting out or opting in? Conscience clauses minority belief communities and the possibility of inclusive religious education in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Religious Education, 35(3), 236-250.
