Ethical and Legal Responsibilities of a Dentist: A Case Study

Introduction :Tort Assignment

James has just obtained his dental licence. His employment at Smiles Dental Surgery in Camford began in July 2022. James is probably anxious to establish his credentials and leave a positive impression on his patients and coworkers as a recently licenced dentist. James must also understand the ethical and legal obligations of being a dentist. He must ensure that his actions are always in the best interests of his patients and that the treatment he gives them is compassionate, efficient and safe. Janice worked as the manager of Chelmsbridge High Street's Local Superstore Ltd., a tiny grocery. She was well-liked by her employees and clients, having worked for the firm for over ten years. Her work ethic, commitment, and ability to serve customers were well-known. In this assignment, we will explore the mentioned issues using the ILAC (Issues-Rules-Application-Conclusion) method while applying the relevance of the UK courts.

Exploration of Question 1

a) Legal and Professional Implications of Medical Negligence in Injection Administration

The primary issue, in this case, is the injection's delivery, which caused irreversible face injury as a result of a misplaced needle and may have legal ramifications for medical carelessness. The degree of care given by the medical staff and the possible legal repercussions of medical malpractice are called into question by this incident. Rick sustained an irreversible facial injury as a direct result of the injections administration. The carelessness of James harmed Rick in giving the injection.

In the United Kingdom (UK), medical professionals are subject to many rules and regulations to guarantee competent and safe healthcare delivery. In this scenario, "the UK’s Occupiers Liability Act (1957) (OLA)” might make James accountable for Rick’s injuries. OLA requires property owners to take reasonable precautions to guarantee that their spaces are secure for guests. Practitioners of medicine who treat patients are also subject to this duty of care. In this instance, James was responsible for taking reasonable care and skill to ensure that Rick, his patient, received the injection as a medical practitioner. James's duty of care was violated when he injected the needle into the facial nerve of his patient carelessly, which resulted in irreversible facial injury for Rick. Besides that, all UK healthcare professionals are required under “the Health and Social Care Act 2008" to give their patients safe and effective care. Following this Act, healthcare providers must also establish a mechanism for documenting and looking into adverse events. In this instance, the medical practitioner failed to provide the injection according to the proper protocols and neglected to notify the relevant authorities of the situation.

Under the OLA Act, James is responsible for his injuries to Rick. Therefore, Rick can pay James to cover his lost wages, pain and suffering, and any damages brought on by his injuries. Under “the Health and Social Care Act 2008”, the General Medical Council (GMC) has the authority to punish James for his failure to give Rick safe and efficient treatment. This can result in a warning, a suspension, or possibly the cancellation of James's medical licence. Apart from these legal ramifications, James can also encounter professional repercussions from his peers and the GMC. He could have trouble finding employment in the future due to his activities, which could also harm his reputation. The particular implications Rick will experience will be determined by the extent of his injuries and the case's particulars.

In 2016, According to a patient, the doctor injected the drug into the incorrect part of the patient's face, damaging the nerves in that area. Consequently, the patient has been left with facial agony, paralysis, and numbness. As it was a fault of the doctor, he was penalised for $2000 and his medical license was withdrawn for 5 years. This scenario perfectly aligns with this incident, which gives a strong indication of the possible verdict by the court as James medical practices should also be postponed with legal terms.

To sum up this, Rick sustained irreversible face disfigurement as a result of James's carelessness when giving him the injection. This event emphasises how crucial it is to research and how doctors must use the highest level of care while treating patients. James's acts broke many laws, regulations, and norms of behaviour. Consequently, he may have several legal and professional ramifications.

b) Legal and Safety Implications of Patient Injuries in a Medical Practice

Toys that had been left on the waiting room floor caused a patient, here in this case Carol, during a medical procedure to trip and hurt herself. Concerns regarding potential liability and safety dangers are raised by the surgery's practice of keeping toys in the waiting area for paediatric patients. Moreover, the fact that magazines are strewn over the waiting room floor further exposes the surgery's disdain for providing patients with a secure and risk-free atmosphere. These instances raise concerns regarding the surgery's compliance with safety regulations and the possible legal ramifications of patient injuries brought on by carelessness. This concern relates to the healthcare provider's duty to maintain a continuously secure and orderly waiting area.

The United Kingdom has several rules and regulations about healthcare and safety standards that aim to avoid situations such as the one that was mentioned.

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: The healthcare institution is one of the occupiers obligated by these Acts to make sure that their property is visitor-safe. They must exercise reasonable caution to avert reasonably foreseeable injury, including trip risks in waiting areas.

Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) (1974): This law imposes duties on businesses to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their workers and others, such as patients who came there for treatment and received high-quality medical facilities. Hence, the medical practice is obligated under "the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA)" to ensure that patients and visitors are safe on the premises; the approach has failed to uphold this obligation by leaving the magazines and toys on the floor.

The Equality Act 2010 (EA): People are shielded against prejudice for several reasons, such as age and handicap. According to the EA, the medical practice must make the necessary modifications to its facilities in this instance so that those with disabilities may use them.

Given the circumstances outlined, James, the medical practice, may be held accountable under “the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA)” for Carol's injuries as a result of his carelessness in keeping a secure waiting room. The OLA requires property owners to take reasonable precautions to guarantee the safety of their guests. James's operation violated its duty of care to Carol by leaving the toys and magazines on the floor. Carol's injuries, a wounded shoulder from tripping over the toys, were directly caused by this violation. Thus, Carol's injuries may have resulted from James's operation under the terms of the OLA. Also, Carol may pursue a claim for reimbursement from James's process to cover her lost wages, pain and suffering, and any other losses resulting from her injuries under the "Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA)”. Additionally, James's Surgery may be sued under “the Equality Act 2010 (EA)” for neglecting to modify its facilities in a way that would have made them accessible to those with disabilities.

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

Based on the above analysis, it can be summarised that patient safety within the medical institution is a worry raised by the situation where James is treating Carol. The mentioned laws and regulations are in place to safeguard the health and safety of patients.

c)

The main issues in this scenario include the patient's disregard for the physician's orders for restricted activities after the dental operation. Moreover, the involvement of the patient in a high-contact sport where there was a considerable chance of the treated tooth becoming damaged. Due to the careless tackle by the opposing player, the patient's teeth fell out. These problems emphasise how crucial it is for patients to follow their doctor's recommendations; apart from that, the possible repercussions of doing anything that might interfere with the healing process following dental treatments. It also emphasises how important it is for people to behave appropriately and refrain from doing things that might endanger others.

Due to the carelessness of others, "The Civil Liability Act, 1988 permits people in the UK to file civil lawsuits to recover damages for personal injuries. The patient may bring a negligence claim against the other player for causing the tackle that resulted in tooth loss. It may be possible to file a claim for negligence if there is proof that the dental procedure was not completed correctly or if the after-treatment instructions were insufficient, which comes under the Compensation Act 2006. For negligence claims, proof of duty violation, causality, and damages are required. In this scenario, Nasim may have a case for negligence against James if James carelessly provided the dental care or if the instructions given after the procedure were insufficient. To prove a case of failure successfully, one must prove three things: damages (the loss of the tooth in this case), causation (the relationship between the carelessness and the harm), and a breach of the duty of care. Moreover, under “The Civil Liability Act, 1988” " if James was negligent in causing Nasim's tooth loss, Nasim might file a lawsuit against him. James may also be subject to moral questions because of his behaviour in addition to these regulations. James's responsibility as a medical practitioner is to give his patients the finest treatment possible. In this instance, James may have violated his ethical duties by neglecting to sufficiently warn Nasim about the dangers of playing rugby. 

In order to sum up, this case emphasises the value of open lines of communication and teamwork between patients and healthcare providers, especially when it comes to directions for after-treatment care. Medical practitioners may assist in avoiding unnecessary events and guarantee the best possible outcomes for their patients by giving them thorough information about potential dangers and constraints.

Exploration of Question 2

a) Negligence, Civil Liability, and the Importance of Following Post-Treatment Care Instructions

In this case, the supervisor's improper and maybe intimidating actions towards the cleaner are the primary problem. Therefore, the cleaner felt scared and intimidated by the supervisor's actions, even if it's possible that they weren't malicious. In the job, polite relationships and effective communication are crucial. Supervisors should avoid acting in a way that might be seen as intimidating or abusive when handling performance problems; instead, they should work professionally and constructively.

In the United Kingdom (UK), several rules and regulations are designed to avoid and handle workplace aggressiveness and conflict. "Employment Rights Act 1996 covers the connection between an employee and an employer and contains rules about the need for employers to provide a secure workplace. Hence, employees may use it if they believe other people's conduct has jeopardised their safety. The UK has incorporated the "European Convention on Human Rights” into its legal system through the “Human Rights Act 1998” legislation.. If people's behaviours at work influence fundamental human rights—like the freedom from cruel or humiliating treatment—then it could be pertinent. Combining conflict resolution, efficient communication, clear workplace standards, training, and a dedication to creating a courteous and happy work atmosphere is frequently necessary to prevent such situations.

Janice may utilise the “Employment Rights Act” to request protection if she believes Bob's actions have jeopardised her safety. Her employer is responsible for addressing concerns related to the work environment so she can report the situation to them. Intimidation and disrespect are problematic behaviours that could negatively affect the cleaner's productivity and well-being. On top of that, “The Human Rights Act” may be applicable if Janice and Bob's dispute raises issues with fundamental human rights. The employer and any other parties concerned would have to consider these rights before taking any steps or intervening. The facts of the case, the workplace regulations in force, and the decisions made by the employer and the parties concerned will determine how precisely these laws are applied.

In addition to highlighting the possibility of confrontation at work, the Janice and Bob scenario emphasises the significance of following rules and legislation to maintain a polite and safe workplace. In resolving the issue, protecting workers' health and safety, and stopping harassment or discrimination, the employer plays a critical role. It could be necessary to undertake a workplace inquiry and for the employer to put in place the necessary safeguards to prevent such situations from happening in the future.

b) Unlawful Detention and Employee Rights Violations in the Workplace

Declaring without consulting the workforce, Claus, the deputy manager, locked the doors after making the unilateral decision that no worker should leave until the store was cleaned. Concerns are raised regarding the employees' freedom of movement and the legitimacy or reasonableness of such acts. In addition, Claus effectively locked the staff members inside the building without getting their permission by closing the doors. This can be seen as an unlawful kind of unauthorised detention. If entries are locked without the staff's knowledge, there may be a risk to their safety in the event of an emergency, and they cannot quickly leave the building.

Employee rights, such as the prohibition against unjust termination, are established under the “Employment Rights Act 1996”. Events like unexpectedly locking staff members inside a business may be regarded as violating their work rights, with possible legal repercussions. According to "The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992”, companies must give their workers a secure and healthy workplace. The activity of the deputy manager may be viewed as a violation of these rules since they produced a sense of entrapment and immobility among the staff. The "European Convention on Human Rights” protections for individual rights are upheld by “The Human Rights Act 1998”. Article 5 of this act convention may be cited as a breach of Claus's acts about the "right to liberty and security” of the person (legislation.gov.uk, 2020). The company would have to investigate the complaint and take necessary action if the workers told them about the occurrence.

Claus's conduct can be seen as illegal detention by "the Employment Rights Act of 1996 (ERA)”. Claus practically stripped the workers of their freedom and right to roam about the business by shutting the doors without their permission and keeping them from leaving. There is a chance that this will result in the employer being sued. After doing this, Claus violated Section 5 of the “European Convention on Human Rights”, which is integrated into UK legislation by “the Human Rights Act 1998”. Claus violated the employees' fundamental human rights by limiting their freedom of movement and securing their confinement within the premises without their agreement.

There are accusations against a warehouse manager who kept his employees locked in a store overnight and makes them work. According to reports, the unnamed manager would not allow the employees to leave the store until they had completed their shifts. After hours, the boss is alleged to have closed the doors. It is stated that the employees were kept inside the store for more than 12 hours without being provided a break, food, or drink. As a result, he was arrested by the local police due to violations of organisational ethics and employee rights, under the “Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.” This case can be a blueprint of the potential verdict of the mentioned scenario.

c) Liability for Property Damage Due to Negligence in a Parking Lot Incident

The main problem, in this case, is that Vikram's new automobile was damaged in an accident caused by Peter, the work experience trainee, who was collecting trolleys when he accidentally hit it. The crash with Vikram's car happened because Peter was gathering trolleys and didn't check where he was going. In order to be negligent, one must fail to take appropriate precautions, and in this instance, carelessness leads to further damage. Vikram's new automobile had damage worth £4,000 as a result of the crash. Therefore, this raises questions about who is liable for property damage and who must pay damages to compensate for the harm done.

All road users must care under "the Road Traffic Act of 1988” to behave appropriately and take all reasonable precautions to prevent harm or property damage. The concepts of tort law may be pertinent, especially those concerning carelessness and the tort of trespassing upon property. When someone willfully or carelessly damages the property of another, it is known as trespassing. Under UK tort law, victims of harm to their economic interests, health, safety, reputation or property are entitled to damages. If it was shown that Peter's carelessness contributed to the incident with Vikram's car, he may face charges under "the Road Traffic Act of 1988” for reckless driving. In addition, legal concepts like applying tort law and trespassing onto property may be necessary in determining who is liable for the damages. In order to pay for the expenses related to property damage, insurance considerations, especially liability insurance, can be relevant. This illustrates the ethical claims and direction of the given case in this assignment.

In London, after backing into a customer’s car in the parking lot, a work experience trainee in the supermarket damaged it to the tune of £4,000. The seventeen-year-old trainee lost control while reversing a delivery vehicle and collided with a parked car. The event did not result in any injuries for the 50-year-old consumer. In addition to offering to cover the cost of the car's damage, the retailer has expressed regret for what happened.

After evaluating the whole scenario, it can be concluded that the situation with Peter and Vikram's private car demonstrates property damage due to neglect. Awareness of the problems at hand requires understanding the legal concepts of negligence and duty of care.

d) Legal and Ethical Concerns Regarding Child Labour and Workplace Safety

The main concerns in this case study are the possible abuse of minors as labourers and the hazards to Daisy's health and safety when she helps Janice, a fifteen-year-old, unload delivery trucks since there isn't enough personnel. At the age of fifteen, Daisy could be covered by specific child labour regulations, which govern the kinds of jobs, hours worked, and working conditions appropriate for people her age. Apart from that, Daisy's back problem prompts worries about security and well-being of her. Teenagers could find it too difficult to carry a big box of celery without the proper training and safety precautions. Injuries and possible health concerns might result from this.

The legal foundation for child employment in the UK is established by “the Employment of Children Act 1973” and other relevant laws (ILO, 2023). These rules specify the kinds of jobs forbidden for people under a specific age—usually fifteen. Under "the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974”, employers must protect employees' health, safety, and welfare to the extent that it is practically practical. Employers are required to evaluate and control hazards to the health and safety of their employees, and it has rules specifically for younger workers.

“The Employment of Children Act 1973” forbids anyone under a specific age from working certain jobs. His daughter is 15 years old, so he can be fined up to £500. According to "the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974”, Janice is responsible for ensuring the health and safety of all employees, which in this case includes Daisy. When unloading delivery trucks, Janice can violate this obligation if Daisy's safety and health are in danger.

A fifteen-year-old girl's back ailment resulted from her job requiring her to move large boxes. During her employment at a store, the unidentified girl was requested to lift a carton of celery that weighed more than twenty kilogrammes. Her back got hurt when she was struggling to raise the box. The incident is being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Health and Safety Executive stated it is "committed to protecting the health, safety and welfare of all workers, including young people.” As a result, the employer’s license was terminated for 2 years that reflects the consequence of his unethical activity. This instance demonstrates a close connection with this case.

Several legal and ethical issues are brought up by the circumstances when Janice asks her 15-year-old daughter Daisy to assist with unloading delivery vehicles. Janice may face civil responsibility, penalties and enforcement measures from the appropriate authorities, among other conceivable legal repercussions.

Conclusion

The cases covered here, on the whole, illustrate a variety of legal and moral issues that arise in the workplace with the help of the ILAC method. Employers must adhere to pertinent rules and regulations to safeguard their workforce's welfare, security, and equitable treatment. Civil issues that cause pain or loss to persons are referred to as torts. Civil law matters serve as the foundation for claims made by one party against another for damages or compensation for wrongdoing. Different categories of torts exist, including strict responsibility, deliberate torts, and negligence. Legal professionals can provide customised guidance tailored to the case's specifics to ensure everyone understands the potential legal implications and responsibilities.

References

• ‘Equality Act 2010’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 2021) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents> accessed 22 November 2023
• ‘The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111117613> accessed 22 November 2023 
• Equalityhumanrightsuk, ‘The Human Rights Act’ (The Human Rights Act | EHRC, 2020) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act> accessed 22 November 2023
• GOV UK E, ‘Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 1 January 2022) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/31/contents> accessed 22 November 2023
• hseni.gov.uk (Five steps to risk assessment - health and Safety Executive Northern ..., 2020) <https://www.hseni.gov.uk/sites/hseni.gov.uk/files/publications/%5Bcurrent-domain%3Amachine-name%5D/five-steps-to-risk-assessment-2017.pdf> accessed 22 November 2023
• ILO, ‘Breadcrumb’ (NATLEX, 2023) <https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/r/natlex/fe/details?p3_isn=16255&cs=1aUYQwt_abd9nEW8YMwbxcZz3I8eUCdrBpeQ0fkgPqBHqLicXNVTYNwnOJtT-y8gVO26rJUYTuPdUICYPAjcW5A> accessed 22 November 2023 
• legislation.gov.uk (Civil liability act 2018 - legislation.gov.uk, 2021) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/29/pdfs/ukpga_20180029_en.pdf> accessed 22 November 2023
• legislation.gov.uk E, ‘Human Rights Act 1998’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 9 November 2020) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/4> accessed 22 November 2023
• Limbrick PSS, ‘Patient Sues Heathrow Vampire Facelift Doctor over “ruined” Smile’ (The Telegraph, 30 November 2016) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/27/patient-sues-heathrow-vampire-facelift-doctor-ruined-smile/> accessed 23 November 2023 
• The Guardian, ‘Is Good Posture Overrated? Back to First Principles on Back Pain’ (The Guardian, 5 August 2023) <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/06/good-posture-back-pain-how-to-avoid> accessed 23 November 2023 
• TimesNow, 'Company Locks Employees Inside Office to Stop Them from Leaving, Viral Video Infuriates Netizens: Watch' (TimesNow, 4 June 2023) <https://www.timesnownews.com/viral/company-locks-employees-inside-office-coding-ninjas-viral-video-netizens-appalled-article-100739690> accessed 23 November 2023 
• Tims A, ‘Three Cars Damaged but Bang Goes Any Compensation’ (The Guardian, 14 December 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/14/cafr-insurance-damage-claim-supermarket-garage> accessed 22 November 2023
• UK.practicallaw (Tort | practical law, 2019) <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/topic/1-540-5226?sv=1-203-9929&contextData=(sc.Default)> accessed 23 November 2023