Reference no: EM134031382
Assignment:
Crime is defined as social harm and made punishable by law, resulting in either a misdemeanor or felony. Patients are often in vulnerable states and at the mercy of others, therefore, the need for zero-tolerance of crime in any form within healthcare is necessary. Unfortunately, healthcare facilities are far too often places where helpless people are often preyed upon.
Christopher Duntsch, MD was a neurosurgeon that was convicted of a crime in 2018. He is the first doctor to be convicted for aggravated assault related to the care provided in the operating room. He is serving a life sentence in prison and has lost all appeals. Duntsch earned the nickname 'Dr. Death' from a 2016 magazine article and the name stuck.
There are many publications, podcasts, and even a show on the Peacock channel about this case that seems more like a fictional thriller than a true story resulting in harm to many patients. A couple publications are listed below but you should thoroughly research this case in order to answer the following questions regarding legal aspects of health care. Be sure that your answers are thorough. A note of caution to be careful about gaining information from a reputable source.
Dr. Death - D Magazine 2016
A Surgeon So Bad It Was Criminal - ProPublica 2018
Duntsch v. State of Texas - 2018
1. What criminal acts was Dr. Duntsch charged?
2. Are there additional violations in the case that he was not charged with? (Negligence or other intentional torts)
3. What legal proceedings occurred in this case?
4. Discuss how the standard of care was at issue.
5. Evaluate the liability of the various players involved in the case. What responsibilities did the hospitals and healthcare systems who employed him have? What about other clinicians who were aware of the violations but did not report them? Should also be penalized for staying silent?
6. Do you think this case is an isolated example of patient harm? Has the case prompted any legal change in an attempt to prevent other "bad actors" from doing something similar (e.g. sparked any reform actions)?
7. How does this case violate the Jesuit values of respect, integrity, trust, Cura Purasonalis (caring for the whole person - mind, body, and spirit) and contributing to the greater good? What other ethical and moral issues can you identify with this case?
8. Do you think that the notoriety given to the case was beneficial or harmful? Explain your answer.