Individual Rights In Healthcare And Public Health Explain ✓ Solved

Individual Rights In Health Care And Public Healthq 1explain The Meani

Explain the meaning of the “no-duty-to-treat” principle and provide two examples of laws that narrow the scope of the “no-duty-to-treat” principle.

Describe the origin of EMTALA (what prompted Congress to create it) and explain the key duties that exist under EMTALA.

Essential Readings 10 Canterbury v. Spence (Patient-Oriented Standard of Informed Consent) online article · Discussion Question Box 6-3, · What were the key determinations made by the federal court of appeals in the case of Canterbury v. Spence?

Essential Readings 14 – Roe v. Wade (Constitutional Right to Abortion) · Describe the “trimester framework” employed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade.

Essential Readings 15 Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Validity of Pennsylvania Abortion Statute) online article · Explain how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey altered the abortion regulation scheme articulated in Roe v. Wade.

Please read the New York Times article “When Health Coverage Expansion Means Longer Waits for a Doctor” by Austin Frakt, November 24, 2014. The article:

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The principles guiding individual rights in healthcare and public health are foundational to ensuring ethical and equitable medical practices. Among these principles, the "no-duty-to-treat" principle plays a significant role in defining the boundaries of healthcare providers' obligations. This paper explores the meaning of this principle, the legislative laws that modify its scope, and key legal cases that have shaped the landscape of reproductive rights and patient consent. Additionally, we will analyze the origin and duties under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), and examine significant court rulings such as Canterbury v. Spence, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to understand their impact on healthcare policy and patient rights.

The "No-Duty-to-Treat" Principle

The "no-duty-to-treat" principle signifies that healthcare providers and institutions are generally not legally obligated to provide treatment to individuals unless a specific duty has been established through contractual obligation or statutory requirement (Savulescu et al., 2020). This principle emphasizes a voluntary nature of medical treatment, respecting patient autonomy in choosing when to seek care. However, this principle is subject to exceptions, especially in emergency situations or certain legal contexts.

Laws that narrow the scope of this principle include statutes such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and state laws mandating certain standards of care. For instance, EMTALA requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide emergency screening and treatment regardless of a patient's ability to pay, effectively creating a legal duty where otherwise none existed (Hoffman & Weinstock, 2019). Similarly, some states have enacted laws that impose mandatory reporting or treatment obligations for communicable diseases, thus overriding the general "no-duty" stance.

Origin and Duties under EMTALA

Congress enacted EMTALA in 1986 in response to hospital "dumping," where patients were transferred or refused care in emergency settings due to financial constraints. The legislation aimed to prevent hospitals from denying emergency services based on inability to pay and to ensure immediate stabilization of patients in emergency conditions (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2021).

EMTALA imposes specific duties on hospitals with emergency departments. These duties include providing a medical screening examination to determine if an emergency medical condition exists, and if so, providing stabilizing treatment regardless of the patient's insurance status or ability to pay. If a hospital cannot stabilize a patient, it must arrange transfer to an appropriate facility, adhering to federal protocols to ensure patient safety (Fisher & Miller, 2018).

Legal Cases and their Significance

One pivotal case is Canterbury v. Spence, where the federal court of appeals addressed informed consent. The court established that physicians have a duty to disclose information necessary for a patient to make an informed decision about their treatment. This case shifted the legal standard to a patient-oriented model, focusing on what a reasonable patient would need to know (Rothstein, 1981).

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion, employing the "trimester framework" to balance a woman's rights against the state's interests at different stages of pregnancy. The decision articulated that during the first trimester, the decision to terminate is protected, whereas later stages allow for increased regulation.

The ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified this framework, emphasizing the "undue burden" standard. The Court upheld most of Pennsylvania's abortion restrictions but rejected the trimester framework, shifting toward a more flexible standard that considers the overarching importance of reproductive rights and state interests (Greenhouse, 1993).

Conclusion

The doctrines of individual rights, legal standards, and court rulings are instrumental in shaping healthcare policy and practice. Understanding the scope and limitations of principles like "no-duty-to-treat," alongside landmark legal decisions, provides vital insight into the complexities of healthcare law, ethics, and patient rights.

References

• Fisher, T. & Miller, D. (2018). Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA): A Comprehensive Overview. Journal of Healthcare Law, 24(2), 45-60.
• Greenhouse, L. (1993). The Supreme Court and Abortion Law: The Casey Decision. New York Times.
• Hoffman, J., & Weinstock, M. (2019). Law and Ethics in Emergency Medical Care. Medical Law Review, 4(1), 67-84.
• Rothstein, W. G. (1981). Informed Consent and Physician Liability: The Canterbury Decision. Harvard Law Review, 94(8), 1731-1750.
• Savulescu, J., et al. (2020). Ethical Foundations of Medical Practice. Oxford University Press.
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). EMTALA: Ensuring Emergency Care Access. HHS.gov.
• Greenhouse, L. (1993). The Supreme Court and Abortion Law: The Roe v. Wade Decision. The New York Times.
• Fisher, T. & Miller, D. (2018). Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA): A Comprehensive Overview. Journal of Healthcare Law, 24(2), 45-60.
• Hoffman, J., & Weinstock, M. (2019). Law and Ethics in Emergency Medical Care. Medical Law Review, 4(1), 67-84.
• Rothstein, W. G. (1981). Informed Consent and Physician Liability: The Canterbury Decision. Harvard Law Review, 94(8), 1731-1750.