Need it by 7 Pm today. NO Format No references
It will this was posted yesterday and the deadline is fast approaching as it is 6:45 pm EST
Okay Thank you very much
Thank you for your question.From purely a legal perspective a medical doctor or professional has a legal right and ability to deny or refuse care unless the patient in question is in an emergency medical situation where denial of care can cause irreparable harm or death to the patient. But if there is no harm, and it is not an emergency situation, a medical facility is free to refuse for whatever reason they deem provided it is not discriminatory. Here, the patients in question had a history of an existing lawsuit against the facility, which understandably worried the facility that if they would be on premises, there may be more legal repercussions. This denial of care would therefore not violate the law, and even under public policy considerations would be upheld as valid because the care in question was not life-saving or emergency based.From an ethical perspective it is the responsibility of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and medical treatment centers to provide care. Doctors are supposed to 'do no harm' but at the same time doctors are under contract. And under contract they can refuse to contract with any party they wish. This freedom to contract is also a freedom 'from' contract, something the patients are not denying, because they are not claiming breach but are instead claiming public policy. If they are right, then no doctor would ever be able to deny care or deny a patient. That would be unethical itself because it would create a de facto slavery obligation where a doctor would have no choice but to treat whomever appears. That would violate this freedom to choice your own patients and your own terms, and is why the decision the hospital made, while potentially insensitive, is quite legal and not unethical.Hope that helps.