Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Causey v. St. Francis Medical Center. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper provides an overview of the case of Causey v. St. Francis Medical Center. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: MH11_MHCausey.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
demonstrates that the use of tort action can sometimes be premature. In this case, the Courts decision was based on the belief that the application of tort law required
that the physician involved in the case go through a medical board proceeding to determine whether this actions were appropriate prior to litigation. The case began when Sonya Causey, a
woman with end-stage renal failure and quadriplegia, who entered St. Francis Medical Center (SFMC) in a coma after experiencing cardiorespiratory arrest (Murray, 1998). The physician who treated Causey, Dr.
Herschel Harter, told her family that she could continue to live with dialysis and a ventilator, but she was unlikely to regain consciousness (he gave her a 1 to 2
percent chance). The family stated a desire to maintain life support against Dr. Harters recommendations, and Harter attempted to have her transferred to another facility, unsuccessfully. Harter sought
support from SFMCs Morals and Ethics Board, and the decision was made to discontinue life-support and produce a DNR order (do not resuscitate), which was in place when her respirator
was removed against the wishes of her husband, mother and father. Causey died shortly after life support was removed, and the family charged Dr. Harter and SFMC with intentional
battery under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) (Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 164 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.A. [sections] 1395 dd (1998)) and Louisianas
Medical Malpractice Act (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. [sections] 40:1299.41 et seq.). The Court of Appeals held that the application of tort action in this case was not preempted
by either the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) (Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 164 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.A. [sections] 1395 dd (1998)) or Louisianas
...