Malcolm was a physician who ran a small private practice in Harrison, Kansas. One evening, the Sandersons brought their young daughter in for treatment of what they thought was a minor throat infection. Dr. Malcolm treated her with a standard antibiotic and sent the child home. What neither Dr. Malcolm nor the Sandersons knew was that the child had contracted a rare and often fatal blood disease. The disease, Seballian Syndrome, could only be treated with a new antibiotic called Veritrium. Had the Sanderson child been treated with Veritrium in a timely manner, her illness would have been short-lived, and she would have suffered no permanent damage. As it was, the inaccurate diagnosis and the ill-advised treatment initiated by Dr. Malcolm actually made the child worse and almost caused her untimely death. Although the child eventually recovered, her hearing was permanently damaged. The Sandersons initiated a malpractice suit against Dr. Malcolm. The doctor argued that because of her location in the remote section of Kansas, she should not be expected to be as up to date on modern techniques as physicians who practiced in large metropolitan areas. Furthermore, she argued that she could not have known about the new treatment and should therefore not be held liable. Is the physician correct? Explain your thoughts and how the different theories might be applied

1 page answer