Law and Ethics in Health Services

United Hospital Center, Inc). Additionally, the decision by the board of a private nonprofit hospital to suspend, retract, limit, or even deny to reinstate the appointment of a staff physician or their clinical privileges can only be subjected to very minimal review by the judicial tribunal. This is however only done on the grounds to establish whether or not the board complied with the bylaws of the hospital that requires for sufficient notice is given to the physician in question and their subjection to a fair hearing conducted by a panel that is impartial (Mahmoodian v. United Hospital Center, Inc). These were all fulfilled by the hospital. The Civil Rights Act prohibits termination due to retaliation. The courts may also get involved when the organization initiates an action against their employees because of their refusal to participate in an activity that is illegal.

For instance, when the management wants an employee to alter or destroy records. Additionally, when the employee gets punished for reporting any violation to either state or federal laws by the organization, or for participating in activities that are deemed to be of interest to the general public such as being in the military or jury duty, the courts will intervene. Employees are also protected by the law when they are punished for informing on the organization to the state agencies for professional misconduct and breach of contract. If the caregiver can establish that the patient lacks the capacity to give an informed refusal, they may make decisions based on the most suitable medical intervention. However, since the patient in this case has both the capacity and competency to make that decision, I would not initiate care against their wish (Selde).

Question Two: The hospital has no legal or ethical grounds to challenge the refusal of the patient to undergo blood transfusion. Patients are permitted by law to decline care provided they are capable of comprehending their medical condition and the risks that they may subject themselves to when they refuse care vis-à-vis the benefits (Dempsey). This implies that patient have the liberty of making decisions that the physicians or any other care provider may deem as being poor so long as they comprehend the impact of their decision. This federal law requires that any hospital or healthcare institution provides information to an adult patient in a written form upon admission, enrollment, inception of care in a hospice facility, or before initiation of care in home settings.

This information should give a detailed description of the right of the patient protected by the law within the state before they can make decisions regarding the medical intervention, or refusal thereof, and to come up with directives that are advanced vis-à-vis the policies of the healthcare institution (Boyle). The main aim of this statute is to urge adult patients to fill out directives for their individual treatment, proxy nominations, or both. Additionally, the law requires that caregivers and healthcare institutions honor such directives. The directives not only improve the communication between the patient and their caregiver but also enhances clarity of the wishes the patient has towards their health, and is a source of assurance that the process of medical intervention will agree with the individual values in terms or personal and health beliefs, and preferences of the patient (Boyle).