100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 26 pages.
the patient. Dr. Ricketson completely took advantage of the language barrier between him and Arturo when providing informed consent and when he neglected to communicate with Arturo of the incident in his initial surgery. A language barrier can have a detrimental effect on whether the patient understands fully the risk and benefits of the surgery. It is appropriate to communicate all information involved the surgery in the patient’s primary language so they can fully understand the facts and make an educated decision on their healthcare. Healthcare consumer of different cultural backgrounds may assume that their surgeon can be trusted because in their culture physicians are trustworthy, whereas an American may question their care provided. Arturo may not have asked any questions and proceeded with the surgery just out of trust for Dr. Ricketson toprovide safe and competent care and the language barrier without the consideration of any communication devices or a translator made it extremely easy for Arturo to sign his name on the consent form without having all the facts about his procedure.AccountabilityDr. Ricketson and HMC were both held accountable in negligence which was a substantial factor in Arturo’s injuries. Medtronic was not held liable for any injuries that Arturo sustained because HMC failed to inventory the kits on arrival and prior to Arturo’s initial surgery. It could not be proven whether the titanium rods were actually shipped from Medtronic facilities in Memphis and Tulane or they were lost at HMC and Dr. Ricketson altered the contents of the kits to create the improvised unilateral rod that was implanted in Arturo’s spine during his initial surgery, this was never approved by Medtronic as an appropriate substitution of equipment needed to perform the spinal fusion. Dr. Ricketson failed to inform the patient of this incident and HMC staff failed to advocate for this patient during surgery as well as neglecting to inventory the M8 Titanium CD Horizon Kits when they were received and the day of the surgery.
12HMC also failed to thoroughly investigate Dr. Ricketson’s previous professional history which would have revealed his numerous lapses of professional judgement. The jury appointed in the plaintiff’s favor that Dr. Ricketson was sixty-five percent liable for damages and HMC was found to be thirty-five percent liable. The amount of $307,000 was awarded for special damages to Arturo’s estate, $1.7 million in general damages to Arturo’s estate, $170,000 in general damages to Rosalinda and $3.4 million in in damages from Dr. Ricketson individually. It is the duty of medical professionals to always advocate for patients especially if there is a language barrier or they are under anesthesia. Ethical ComponentEthical IssuesThe case of Iturralde vs. Hilo Medical Center (HMC) presents many ethical issuesregarding the care that Dr. Ricketson and HMC provided to Arturo Iturralde which lead to this malpractice claim. The first ethical issue that rises in this case is autonomy, which “means that people have the right to make decisions about their own life” (Fremgen, 2016, p. 22). The