"Should healthcare professionals not be allowed to make any mistakes
The high rates of malpractice suits raise the question, "Should healthcare professionals not be allowed to make any mistakes?" Consider the following case. In your estimation, is failing to pursue further testing simply a mistake? Consider this from the point of view of the risk manager and of the patient's spouse.
A 38-year-old female was admitted to the emergency room of Goodcare Hospital with symptoms that suggested a gastrointestinal problem. The attending physician performed all the routine tests, and the results were normal. During the time the patient was in the ER, she had uncontrolled diarrhea and grew weaker. The medication given did not help. The patient died, and the autopsy revealed that she was suffering from giardiasis, an intestinal parasitic infection. This infection is not detected by routine parasitic testing. If detected, the infection can be effectively treated with antibiotics. In this case, if the patient had been correctly diagnosed, she would likely have recovered quickly and lived. The attending physician was sued for negligence for failing to diagnose the infection. A jury awarded the woman’s husband $725,000.
Sample Solution
From the point of view of a risk manager, failing to pursue further testing is not necessarily just a mistake; it could be viewed as negligence if there was reasonable cause to believe that more testing should have been done. For example, if the patient had presented with symptoms that warranted further investigation and the healthcare professional failed to do so, this could be grounds for malpractice. From the point of view of the patient's spouse, failing to pursue further testing may also not simply be deemed a mistake. The spouse may feel that their loved one was deprived from receiving adequate care due to an error in judgment by the healthcare professional. This feeling can lead them to seek legal action against such negligence and potentially receive compensation for damages.
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be done can be morally justified, if it follows the rules of jus ad bellum.
In conclusion, just war theory is very contestable and can argue in different ways. However, the establishment of a just peace is crucial, making all war type situation to have different ways of approaching (Frowe (2010), Page 227). Nevertheless, the just war theory comprises of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it can be either morally controversial or justifiable depending on the proportionality of the circumstance. Therefore, there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war but only a theoretical guide to show how wars should be fought, showing normativity in its account, which answers the question to what a just war theory is.