Law in Public Health

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Law Paper

1 June 2016.

Law in Public Health

Chapter 6 Question 1

The physician-patient relationship begins as a contractual agreement where the physician enlists to examine and treat the patient for monetary compensation. This implies that the patient and physician come into a mutual agreement that the latter will start providing medical services to the former.

ORDER A PAPER LIKE THIS NOW

 The physician does not have to abide by the discretion and authority of the patient when it comes to the performance of his/her professional duties. As such, the physician does not in any way become the “employee” of the patient. Thus, the patient-physician relationship is often consensual. Since the relationship is consensual, the physician may refuse to treat the patient even in an emergency situation. Nevertheless, the patient-physician relationship exists irrespective of who pays for the medical services. The physician owes the patient the duties of skill, diligence, and care to nonpaying patients and paying patients alike.

Chapter 6 Question 2

In an express contractual relationship, a physician limits the scope of the contract with his or her patient and does not assume the responsibility for all of the patient’s medical needs. The physician may limit his/her services depending on his/her area of specialization, personal beliefs or the philosophy of practice. In this contract, the relationship between the two parties is created via oral or written contracts. For example, an internist may specify in the contract that he or she will not perform any surgery on the patient.

In contrast, the patient-physician relationship in an implied contract is often inferred from a physician’s conduct. In this contract, the courts find a relationship to have existed upon the physician commencement of treatment. For example, the physician may offer to listen to the patient’s symptoms over the cell phone and offer some treatment advice even before personally meeting the patient.

Chapter 7 Question 1

Adults may be said to have a decision-making capacity as long as they fulfill two conditions. The first one is that they have not in any case been declared by the court as incompetent. The second condition under which adults have decision-making capacity is if they are capable of understanding the consequences of alternative courses of action. This happens by weighing the alternatives based on the degree by which adults promote their desires, subsequently choosing an approach and acting accordingly. For example, an individual may refuse life-saving treatment provided that he/she understands and appreciates the consequences of this decision.

The usual presumption is that the law assumes that the individual has the capacity to decide on their own and that anyone who disagrees with the presumption ought to prove otherwise. This means that as long as a person is over eighteen, they are considered to have a decision-making capacity to the effect that they cannot be challenged by anyone without proof.

Chapter 7 Question 2

Minors can make their own decisions under four circumstances. Firstly, they can make decisions as permitted by the statutes. Secondly, they can make decisions if emancipated, where they enjoy similar rights as adults in making medical decisions. Thirdly, minors can make decisions if they are mature. Finally, they are allowed to make decisions if they are contracting for necessaries. Emancipated minors are those that are no longer subject to parental control and are not supported by their parents. A mature minor is an individual who is over the age of fourteen and who has decision-making capacities. However, mature minors may sometimes make consent to medical care often based on common law and the constitutional principles stipulated under the statutes of some states. Necessaries are the basic requirements of human life such as food and shelter.