Abstract
In the course of dispensing his doctoral duties dr. M performs some actions that though seemingly random and innocent at the time, tend to have grave consequences on young Jacob’s life. The debate thus arises as to exactly how the doctor’s actions came to have such grave consequences on an innocent victim and the doctor’s credibility as a medical practitioner comes into question. The issue of the responsibilities of a patient when faced with a seemingly negligent doctor also arises in relation to what Jacob could have done as a patient to preempt his predicament. The issue of then general conduct of medical practitioners is a pivotal factor in a patient’s recovery and rehabilitation process and aspects of just how this conduct can be breached by rogue medical practitioners is also brought to light through analysis of the sequence of events that takes place throughout Jacob’s visit.
Dr. M makes several mistakes in his handling of Jacob which greatly contribute to the worsening of Jacob’s condition. Dr. M leaves Jacob to go and attend to Sarah. K without first finishing his session with Jacob. This is a counterproductive measure and is highly frowned upon in medical fields. Dr. M clearly shows lack of clear cut commitment and focus on a particular patient and opts to multitask. When Dr. M goes to see Sarah. K, he leaves the door open thus Jacob and his parents are in perfect condition to see and hear exactly what is going on and what the good doctor is discussing with Sarah. This is a clear breach of the doctor patient confidentiality ethic which vehemently suggests that any discussions or actions that happen between doctors and their patients are of the utmost confidentiality and under no circumstances should such details be revealed to outside parties either on purpose or subconsciously by accident. Dr. M breaches this ethic and literally just stomps on it. The medical ethics code of conduct clearly stipulates that hygiene is of paramount significance when physical contact with patients is necessary and protective attire should be adorned in order to protect both the patient and the medical practitioner. At first dr. M appears to be a strong adherent to this code of conduct as he has gloves on while handling Jacob and takes them off before proceeding to attend to Sarah but he stain in his armor steers its ugly face when he fails to put on a new pair of gloves. So negligent is this doctor that he tends to Sarah with his bare hands, in complete disregard for her health as well as his own, and further proceeds to tend to Jacob with the same unprotected hands. He doesn’t even have the courtesy to at least wash his hands before proceeding to the next patient and this clearly tends to worsen Jacob’s condition.
Jacob and his parents however are not as innocent in this matter as they would appear. Sitting idly by and watching evil run rampant is paramount to personally partaking in the evil. Those were the words of martin Luther King. Jacob and his parents take note of all of Dr. M’s actions but fail to voice any concern whatsoever thus the doctor has the appropriate avenue to proceed with impunity. Had Jacob and his parents spoken out on the actions of the doctor, they would have forced the doctor to behave in a more responsible manner thus averting the crisis that later came into fruition as a result of the doctor’s actions as well as their silence.
A deep analysis of the situation reveals that no one was truly helpless in this situation. All of the involved parties could have done something, however small, that could have proven instrumental in preventing the situation from worsening. The bulk of the responsibility rests with Dr. M who could have averted the whole situation by behaving more responsibly and sticking to a set code of conduct in compliance with his oath. Sarah could have refused to be physically examined by a doctor with no gloves on. This would have prevented the doctor from transferring Sarah’s infection to Jacob. Jacob’s parents could have voiced their concern, if they had any, over the conduct of the doctor and prevented him from handling their son with unprotected and unsanitized hands. Jacob, perhaps out of concern for his own life, could have refused to be physically examined by a doctor with no gloves on and who just came from examining another patient with a serious infection. Both Jacob and his parents could have objected to the doctor walking out, mid consultation, to attend to another patient in a situation which clearly was not an emergency and then returning casually to attend to Jacob.
This situation is a perfect recipe for a criminal case and holds all the elements necessary for prosecution. The doctor’s treatment of both Sarah and Jacob proves evident of his lack of concern for his patient’s health as well as utter disregard for the confidentiality of their ailments. The doctor behaves in a manner not befitting a doctor and his actions directly lead to the worsening of Jacob’s condition even to the extent of him getting a severe infection that further requires surgery. All this is evidence of criminal actions of the doctor who should have his day in court.
The doctor portrays a negligent nature throughout this event. He neglects Jacob, mid examination, and excuses himself to go see Sarah yet neglects the code of conduct which clearly stipulates that the medical practitioner must wear gloves at all tine when physical contact with a patient is necessary. Dr. M is negligent not only off his patients but also of the fact that he is supposed to wear safety attire not only for the sake of his patients but also for his own sake and the sake of everyone else he comes in contact with throughout the course of his life. He doctor is also negligent of the entire concept of doctor patient confidentiality as Jacob and his parents can clearly see what is happening and hear exactly what the doctor is conversing with Sarah ever to the extreme extent of being able to tell with pin point accuracy exactly what Sarah’s ailment is.
In order to avoid further complications to innocent patients the doctor should be stripped of his license and ensure he never practices again. This will ensure that no other patient has to suffer the consequences of his neglect and disregard for his job.
References
Fremgen, B. F. (2006). Medical assisting: medical law, ethics & psychology--module G. (4th ed.). Boston, Ma.: Pearson Custom Pub..
