Law ethics

Order Instructions/Description

FACTS Ms. Hoffman was admitted to the hospital with an order for a renal arteriogram. After her admission to the hospital, Ms. Hoffman was presented with a consent form for the procedure. She was 84 at the time of admission and dealing with the onset of Alzheimer’s. Her husband Bob Hoffman was 86 at the time of her admission. He appeared to be competent but was dramatically overwhelmed by all the events transpiring around him and was very upset. As a result the hospital contacted the family of the two. They called their married daughter, Gisella, whose nickname is Goose. She arrived at the hospital with her husband Neil Down. Her married name is Down (Goose Down) as well. Their son, Upsan, (Upsan Down) was with them. He was 15 at the time. When the arrived at the hospital they were in a rush and slipped on some wax which was left by the maintenance people on the floor. Upsan went down and fractured his left femur. Upsan was rushed into surgery dues to the nature of the fracture, (compound) and the fact that the femoral artery was compromised. During surgery a decision was made that in order to save the leg that the femur would have to be reset and his leg would be approximately .5 inches shorter. The consent form listed five radiologists on the form but did not specify which radiologist would perform this procedure for her. The list of radiologists was composed of members of the Pinehurst Radiology Group. This group would determine which radiologist would cover the hospital each day. A consent form for Upsan was not used. Dr. Lina was assigned to perform Hoffman’s procedure. Following the renal arteriogram, the doctor determined that an angioplasty was necessary. There is significant evidence that the radiologist was in error and that the angioplasty was not necessary. In any event, the angioplasty was performed and because of some complications during the procedure, the patient had to be transferred to a different hospital. Her condition deteriorated within thirty days and eventually she lost significant motor functions. She is bed ridden. Dr. Lina has limited privileges at the hospital. Specifically, she is part of the Pinehurst Group, pays her own medical malpractice insurance and simply does the anesthesia/other services with the privileges of the hospital. After the surgery, while being transported to another recovery room, an attendant dropped her while transferring her to another gurney. She sustained a fractured hip. What rights and against whom does she have them for this issue? Please limit your analysis to the issue of informed consent. Please explain what informed consent is, the necessary elements, the reasons for them etc. Is informed consent a defense to a lawsuit? If so why? Please address the same issues as they relate to Upsan and his family. Address the elements, reasons for the law and the effects in this case on further litigation. Finally, the custodian who left the wax on the floor was Mexican and a member of the Catholic Church. He was chastised severely for his mistake in public. His name is Juan Tanameda. Juan want s to know if he has rights based upon the fact that he feels that he was chastised due to his race. Does he?