This week's discussion will be taken directly from a case study in the text. I look forward to your insight on these issues in light of your reading and viewing.

"In the 1991 case Burditt v. Department of Health and Human Services, EMTALA was violated by a physician when he ordered a woman with dangerously high blood pressure (210/130) and in active labor with ruptured membranes transferred from the emergency department of one hospital to another hospital 170 miles away. The physician was assessed a penalty of $20,000. Dr. Louis Sullivan, secretary of DHHS at that time, issued a statement: 'This decision sends a message to physicians everywhere that they need to provide quality care to everyone in need of emergency treatment who comes to a hospital. This is a significant opinion and we are pleased with the result.'

With the duty of care defined in EMTALA, Medicare-participating hospitals must provide a medical screening exam to any individual who enters the emergency department and requests examination or treatment for a medical condition. If the hospital determines that the individual has a medical emergency, it must then stabilize the condition or provide for an appropriate transfer to another medical facility. The hospital is obligated to provide these services regardless of the individual's ability to play and without delay to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status.

Those ED physicians who do not wish to treat all patients of their choosing should vote with their feet and work in those settings where they can choose who they treat.

...

1) What are the main issues in this case? ...

(2) What could have been done to prevent the ethical and legal issues from occurring in the first place? ...

(3) Describe both the hospital's and the physician's ethical and legal responsibilities."