Read this court case very carefully: Bertha Siliezar v. East Jefferson General Hospital and Dr. Joseph Tamimie. No. 04-CA-939. Decided: January 11, 2005.  (See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1094597.html). What do you think about the court ruling regarding the adequacy of verbal consent prior to surgery? Do you think that the clinicians in this case acted reasonably? Ethically? If the plaintiff was your family member how would you feel about this situation? 

add references

 

Answer:

Ethical theories involves:

-Beneficiance

-Non-maleficence

I think the Dr. did not breach her statutory or ethical duties

Step-by-step explanation

The court held that the statute does not require that a patient's consent be obtained in writing. Instead, it may be verbal; nonetheless, it must meet the established criteria established in Capel V Langford. I am of the opinion that verbal consent is not adequate in this type of treatment. The treatment in this present case involves surgery, which is likely to significantly affect the patient's life. As such, it ought to be in writing. 

Yes, the clinicians acted ethically. Based on Dr. Tamimie and nurse Wargo's testimony, it is evident that the doctor explained the treatment process to the patient. Further, Ms. Siliezar, at some point, refused a cortisone injection. The refusal led to little improvement to the inflammatory medication already administered, leading to surgery. This is in line with the non-maleficence ethical theory that dictates the need to ensure that you apply the best practice to improve the patient's condition. Furthermore, the doctor's action aimed to improve the patient's condition hence complying with the beneficence ethical theory. 

If Ms. Siliezar is a family member, I would feel for her but I am of the opinion that Dr. Tamime was in breach of her duty.

References

Siliezar v. East Jefferson General Hosp., 894 So. 2d 373 (La. Ct. App. 2005).