Mr. Greynolds, the patient, and his wife, the next-of-kin, are the plaintiff in this case. The defendant as Dr. Kurman, who performed the cerebral angiogram in the course of the patient's transient ischemic attack.

Plaintiff Position: Mr. Greynolds presented with a TIA, which manifests in stroke-like symptoms. The patient had a right to informed consent, which requires that a patient be of sound mind as the doctors explain the procedure, the risk, how it should effect the patient, what could go wrong, the chances of success, and possible alternatives to the patient. Because the patient was not of sound mind, he could not legally provide consent to Dr. Kurman that he would undergo the procedure. His disabling stroke could have been prevented if the next-of-kin, Mrs. Greynolds, had been given the chance to refuse consent for the procedure on behalf of his wife. Therefore, the liability for the stroke lies on the doctor (Pozgar, 2014).

Defendant Position: Mr. Greynolds presented with a TIA, which may have very well been a stroke. There are two types of strokes, and it is imperative to determine which type of stroke the patient is having before providing treatment; providing treatment for the wrong type of stroke can lead to death. Furthermore, "time is brain" when treating strokes. Therefore, determining the nature of a stroke is imperative to preserving brain function and perhaps life itself. (Pozgar, 2014). Dr. Kurman acted quickly, performing an angiogram to determine the stroke and the treatment that the patient would need. Though the outcome of this treatment was not intended, it was necessary.

Mrs. Greynolds was not present to speak for her husband. The family did not have a Medical Power of Attorney set up, whose sole intention is to provide guidance for these exact scenarios. Even with the patient's medical history, they did not have a POA established. Therefore, Dr. Reynolds was correct to treat the patient using implied consent, and is also supported by Good Samaritan Laws. (Thomas, 2017). If anything, not treating the patient would have been a greater negligence than attempting to treat his stroke.

Strategies to Navigate Organizational Risk: I believe the medical staff acted professionally and ethically. It is unfortunate that the jury did not rule in their favor; I am confident that, if the jury was experienced medical staff, they would have sided with the plaintiff. If the hospital does not already have procedures in place, they should document their consideration for consulting the Medical POA, or determining if there is one. They can also thoroughly document the patient's specific mental status, and their decision to pursue the treatment determined. Outside of thorough documentation, I do not have any suggestions for the hospital as it sounds like they did everything right; this patient needed treated. If Mrs. Greynolds actually would have refused this procedure (which I doubt), then this responsibility lies on the Greynolds family for not having a Power of Attorney set up, especially with the husband's medical history.

(READ THE ABOVE and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW)

Take on one identity of a healthcare professional on an ethics committee. Choose one party in the case.

Critique and refute the defending argument.

Make a recommendation on the case as the healthcare professional's role you have taken serving on the ethics committee.

Which ideas or thoughts did you read that you found interesting or insightful? How did these ideas or thoughts inform your own thinking?