Class Notes (904,877)
CA (538,315)
Western (51,517)
HS 3101A/B (2,220)
Lecture 8

Health Sciences 3101A/B Lecture 8: Chapter 8 - duties of affirmative action

4 Pages

Health Sciences
Course Code
Health Sciences 3101A/B
Robert Solomon

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Chapter VIII: Duties of Affirmative Action  Traditionally, no general duty of care in negligence to take positive action to benefit another person. You just need to refrain from wrongful positive acts.  If you have a special relationship, had a statutory or contractual duty to intervene  Special relationships: parent child, teacher/student, occupier/entrant, employer/employee, HCP/pt Part One: Duties to Rescue & Render Ad, Treat and Refer a) The Duty to Rescue and Render Aid  HCP have no common law duty of care in negligence to assist at the scene of a crash  HCP have a duty to render aid if emergency arises in the course of an existing relationship (ex. Pt has heart attack in waiting room)  Little reason to fear liability in intervening in emergency  Good Samaritan 2001 protects HCP and others who intervene unless grossly negligent  HCP may have ethical or professional obligation to rescue and aid. b) Duty to Treat  HCP cant refuse pts due to discrimination, but they can limit the size of their practice and tailor it to reflect their interest/expertise  Required to take steps to provide ongoing care to existing pts who need it: negligent abandonment  HCP have no duty to provide tx that is inconsistent with accepted practice, not effective or futile  Not required to tx hostile pts or uncooperative  Physicians can refuse tx based on religious beliefs if: physician informs pt it is based on religious beliefs, inform of all clinical options, not express judgments, effective/timely referral to available physician, BUT if its an emergency they have to provide care regardless of their beliefs. c) Duty to Refer  HCP are not expected to be omniscient; however they must know their limits  Liable for failing to refer a pt is they know that the services of that professional are needed  Not liable for a lack of tx resources in their community or long wait times to see specialist.  Layden v. Cope  you can be held negligent in failing to consider other diagnoses if the pts condition deteriorates after your initial diagnosis and failing to refer to a specialist if needed. Part 2: Duties to Control  No common law duty on individuals to control conduct of another unless special relationship exists  In this case, it is with legal power over another to control them (parent/child, employer/employee, teacher/pupil, occupier/entrant)  Special relationship to control is recognized for psychs, nurses and other mental health staff to take reasonable steps to control psych pts. I. The Mentally Ill  Custodial responsibilities o Villemure  failing to properly supervise patients o Wellesley  the MHA act shouldn’t be interpreted as relieving a psych facility for its liability for its negligent act of failing to take steps to control the pt o Shackleton  if something is common practice it is generally allowed unless special orders have been taking. The mere fact that a file indicates something when the pt has been normal is not sufficient in taking special precautions.  Escape and release o Wenden  if there is no ground to believe there is risk and you meet the standard of care, you can’t be held negligent. o Ahmed v. Stefaniu  1995 Johannes had 2 psych admissions from aggressive behaviour; diagnosed with acute psychosis and prescribe anti-psychotic meds. Lived with his sister after second stay and deteriorated in 96. Police had to take him when he threatened sister and admitted as involuntary pt to Form 3 under MHA. The doc said he was lacking insight into his condition and incapable of consenting. Johannes challenged invol admission but denied. In Mid-october, his state deteriorated further as he assaulted others and threatened. On Dec 2, doc referred to Johannes as delusional and paranoid and put in restraints 25 times. On Dec 3 he was angry, lud, intrusive and threatened a nurse. Doc changed him to voluntary pt and he obvi left. In late January, Johannes went to 2 doctors who both said he didn’t meet involuntary admission. He killed sister and husband sued doctor in negligence for changing status; 2 w
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.