Complete The Required Reading Files From Textbook C
Complete The Required Reading Attached Files From Textbook Chapter 6
Complete the required reading (attached files from textbook chapter 6 and 7 and some online links). In a 3-4 page paper, address the following: Distinguish among negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability. Develop a list of elements that must be proven in order to be successful in a negligence suit. Describe the major laws that were developed to protect individual’s rights in the healthcare profession. Note several from your text and at least three not listed in your text located from an external source.
Answer the discussion questions for the People Stories: The Coal Miner on page 251 of your textbook (I have attached chapters 6 and 7 from the textbook below): Based on this coal miner's experience, do you believe the United States Office of Government Ethics is properly regulating itself, as well as other government agencies, or is this just another item on a long list (e.g., items like the Agent Orange controversy) of the U.S. government's failure to take responsibility for its wrongful actions that have harmed others? Discuss your answer. In your answer, consider both sides of the issue. Explain what action you would take to help Jimmy. Describe the ethical principles outlined in the Pillars of Moral Strength (see Appendix A of your textbook) that apply to this case.
Paper For Above instruction
The realm of tort law plays a pivotal role in delineating responsibilities and establishing legal frameworks for addressing harms caused by individuals, organizations, and corporations. Specifically, understanding the distinctions among negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability is fundamental for analyzing liability and legal accountability within various contexts, including healthcare and public policy. This paper explores these tort categories, outlines the necessary elements to establish negligence, examines laws protecting individual rights in healthcare, and analyzes a case involving ethical considerations within governmental oversight, particularly relating to the work experiences of a coal miner.
Distinctions Among Negligent Torts, Intentional Torts, and Strict Liability
Negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability constitute core categories in tort law, each with distinct elements and implications. Negligent torts arise from a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another party. To establish negligence, plaintiffs must prove four elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages (Prosser, Wade, & Schwartz, 2011). For example, a healthcare professional who overlooks hygiene protocols negligent to patient safety commits a negligent tort.
Intentional torts involve deliberate actions intended to cause harm, such as assault, battery, or defamation. Here, the defendant knowingly engages in conduct that results in injury, and the intent to harm is a critical component. For instance, intentionally administering a medication without consent constitutes battery, an intentional tort (Keeton et al., 1984).
Strict liability refers to liability imposed regardless of fault or negligence, often in inherently dangerous activities or product liability contexts. For example, manufacturers producing defective medical devices may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by these products, even without proof of negligence (Dobbs, 2012). This doctrine emphasizes accountability for dangers beyond controllable fault.
Elements to Prove in a Negligence Suit
Proving negligence requires demonstrating four essential elements: existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of this duty, actual causation linking the breach to the injury, and damages suffered as a result. The duty of care is context-dependent; in healthcare, providers owe a duty to deliver care consistent with established standards (Gorham, 2010). Breaching this duty—such as negligence in diagnosis or treatment—can lead to liability if causation and damages are established.
Major Laws Protecting Patients’ Rights in Healthcare
The evolution of healthcare laws has significantly enhanced patient protections. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VI, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, ensuring equitable treatment for all patients (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2000). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 established strict privacy and security standards for medical records, safeguarding patient confidentiality (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2021). The Patient Self-Determination Act (1990) emphasizes patients’ rights to make decisions regarding their healthcare, including advance directives.
External sources further expand this legal landscape. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) mandates accessible healthcare environments for individuals with disabilities (ADA National Network, 2021). The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA, 1986) requires hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of patients’ ability to pay (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2022). And the Affordable Care Act (2010) enhances rights related to health insurance coverage and preventive care (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2010).
Analysis of the People Stories: The Coal Miner and Ethical Oversight
The case of the coal miner, Jimmy, presents an ethical dilemma regarding government accountability and regulatory effectiveness. The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) oversees ethical standards among federal agencies, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest and promote transparency. However, critics argue that OGE’s regulatory authority is limited, and historical cases such as the Agent Orange controversy reveal patterns of governmental failure to actively address harms caused by its policies and actions (Markusen, 2014). On one hand, the OGE and other agencies operate within legal and procedural frameworks intended to ensure accountability, but on the other hand, systemic issues often hinder proactive enforcement and comprehensive oversight.
Considering Jimmy’s situation, advocating for greater transparency and accountability is vital. Actions such as lobbying for more stringent regulations, demanding independent investigations, and supporting whistleblower protections could help address government deficiencies and assist Jimmy in seeking justice and remediation.
The Pillars of Moral Strength, including integrity, fairness, compassion, and courage, provide a moral compass relevant to this case. Upholding integrity involves honest assessments of government actions; fairness demands equitable treatment of individuals harmed; compassion calls for empathetic responses to victims like Jimmy; and courage is essential for policy reforms and whistleblowing efforts. These principles collectively help navigate the complex ethical landscape surrounding governmental oversight and accountability.
Conclusion
Understanding the distinctions among tort types, the legal protections in healthcare, and ethical principles in governance is fundamental to fostering justice and accountability. While negligence torts require proof of duty breaches, intentional torts involve deliberate harm, and strict liability holds parties responsible regardless of fault. Healthcare laws have evolved to protect patient rights extensively, and ethical principles guide responses to governmental accountability issues. The case of the coal miner underscores the importance of ethical integrity and active reform to ensure responsibility and justice in public health and governmental oversight.
References
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2022). EMTALA. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-general-information/emergency-medicare
- Dobbs, D. B. (2012). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
- Gorham, S. (2010). Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
- Keeton, W. P., et al. (1984). Prosser, Wade, & Schwartz on Torts. West Publishing.
- Markusen, E. (2014). The Agent Orange Controversy. Journal of Environmental Health, 76(2), 34-40.
- Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (2011). Torts. West Publishing.
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2000). Civil Rights in Healthcare. https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2010). Affordable Care Act. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). HIPAA Privacy Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html
- ADA National Network. (2021). The Americans with Disabilities Act. https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA