Cobbs V. Grant Case Study
The theme of Module Five is that every patient has a right to receive emergency care and every patient has a right to informed consent. The emergency medical treatment and active labor act (EMTALA) requires hospital that receive Medicare payments to provide care to patients regardless of citizenship, ability to pay, or legal status. Hospitals with EDs that serve Medicare patients must abide by EMTALA, which is a statute that requires stabilization of any patient that presents to the emergency department. An emergency situation as we identified at class is either when the patient is dying, when a woman giving birth, or something about unnatural disability. It's easy for patients to feel powerless in these types of situations, as they present with an illness. That’s why hospital administrators and providers have the duty to give patients every angle of their medical situation. Patients must have all the information about their diagnosis and treatment
…show more content…
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon, Dr. Grant informed the patient, Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer, which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has the right to know about all of the risks and benefits of a certain medical procedure before making a decision to either accept or unaccept that procedure. The court found for Dr. Grant, and they point out that there was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Cobbs known about the adverse effects of the surgery, he would not have consented to the operation. The plaintiff could not prove negligence was a result of the lack of informed consent. The complications associated with the surgery were expected risks therefore negligence was not present. However, I really think the surgeon should inform the patient of all the risks and the side effects of the
Grant case brings up the issue of informed consent. In this case the surgeon, Dr. Grant informed the patient, Mr. Cobbs that he had an intractable peptic duodenal ulcer, which required surgery. In this case the surgeon failed to inform the patient of the risks associated with the initial surgery. The legal principle of informed consent is the patient has the right to know about all of the risks and benefits of a certain medical procedure before making a decision to either accept or unaccept that procedure. The court found for Dr. Grant, and they point out that there was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Cobbs known about the adverse effects of the surgery, he would not have consented to the operation. The plaintiff could not prove negligence was a result of the lack of informed consent. The complications associated with the surgery were expected risks therefore negligence was not present. However, I really think the surgeon should inform the patient of all the risks and the side effects of the