Medical Malpractice Analysis: Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center (2012)
Introduction
The case of Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center USA (2012) revolves around the alleged medical malpractice at Hilo Medical Center, which led to severe complications for the victim, Arturo. The primary stakeholders in this case include the victim, Arturo, the defendant, Hilo Medical Center, and Dr. Ricketson, the surgeon involved. The central issue pertains to a surgical procedure where a sawed-off screwdriver was implanted into Arturo’s spine in place of the appropriate titanium rods. This incident occurred in 2002.
Key Legal Components of the Case: Nature of the Issue and Applicable Rules
The key legal constituents of this case circumscribe the formation of negligence in the standard of care provided to Arturo. The lawsuit alleged that Dr. Ricketson’s decision to use a non-standard instrument during the surgical procedure was negligent and led to Arturo’s subsequent complications (FindLaw, 2012). The case implicated appraising whether this negligence was conceivable and if the successive harm was within the scope of the risk created by the original act.
Relevant Malpractice Policies for Addressing Issues in the Case
Pertinent malpractice policies related to this case would include protocols and guidelines for surgical procedures concerning medical equipment and instruments. Hospitals and medical institutions principally have demanding policies in place that direct the use of sterile, designated, and appropriate instruments during surgeries (Ahmadi et al., 2019). Any alteration from these protocols, especially one as significant as grafting a foreign, non-medical object into a patient’s body, would be a clear violation of these policies.
Analysis of the Malpractice Case: Standard of Care and Potential Breach
Evaluating the standard of care in this malpractice case, it becomes evident that there was a significant breach. The excellence of care requires that medical professionals act with the same skill, care, and diligence as other professionals in the same field (Vanderpool, 2021). In Arturo’s case, implanting a sawed-off screwdriver instead of the designated titanium rods can hardly be deemed as meeting the standard of care (FindLaw, 2012). The act is neither ordinary nor usual in any surgical circumstance.
Thus, considering the principles of medical practice and the standard set by the law, the care provided to Arturo was undoubtedly breached. Considering that this standard is legally designated and can vary across states is crucial. Most states align with a national standard, emphasizing the level of care, skill, and treatment deemed appropriate by reasonably prudent healthcare providers in comparable situations (Vanderpool, 2021). Addressing Arturo’s situation, where a sawed-off screwdriver was used instead of the appropriate titanium rods, one could argue from a strictly legal perspective.
The standard of care is not about providing the mountaintop of care but rather warrants that the care lies somewhere on the spectrum from scarcely tolerable to flawless. Given this, the essence of the argument articulates whether the act of using a sawed-off screwdriver, albeit unconventional, could be placed anywhere on this continuum. It may seem out of the ordinary and not a usual surgical practice if the intent was to provide a solution without the titanium rods and if a reasonable professional made a similar decision in an emergency.
Nevertheless, the consequent events could be contended that the act was not a complete deviation from the standard of care. Furthermore, Vanderpool (2021) foregrounds the merit of physician tactfulness and clinical judgment. Suppose the determination to use the screwdriver was underwritten by clinical judgment with the patient’s best interests in mind and was well-documented. In that case, it might serve as a fortification in light of a latent lawsuit. Thus, while the act might not orient with habitually credited surgical practices, from a legal perspective, whether it coheres to the standard set by justly cautious professionals in similar circumstances is accentuated.
Impact of the Malpractice Case on Healthcare Consumers from Different Cultural Backgrounds
Perusing the comprehensive aftermath of this case, it is perspicuous that it could erode trust in the medical community, principally among healthcare consumers from various cultural backgrounds. Individuals from cultures that place a high value on trust and personal relationships might be particularly shaken (Leong et al., 2022). They could discern this proceeding as an ideogram of carelessness and take no notice of patient welfare. Such a stance could steer augmented incredulity toward medical professionals.
On the other hand, those from cultures that accentuate resilience and acceptance might view this as an unfortunate but isolated incident. However, regardless of cultural background, such a grave breach of trust could universally affect faith in the healthcare system.
Assessment of Accountability in the Malpractice Case Based on Severity
Regarding accountability, the case does call attention to the seriousness of the wrongdoing. The considerable judgment against Dr. Ricketson, amounting to over $5 million, designates the profundity of the criminality (FindLaw, 2012). This financial penance, consolidated with the prospective reputational defacement, denotes a great extent of accountability. The adjudication serves as a stern prompt of the prominence that medical professionals face when they diverge from the contemplated standard of care.
Conclusion
To sum up, the Iturralde V. Hilo Medical Center USA (2012) case accentuates the substance of obedience to commonplace clinical protocols and the dormant results when these are transgressed. The worth of interest discernment in opposition to the defendant and the effect on the broader community serve as desolate reminders. In the medical discipline, there must be the implication that there ought to be an idea of the importance of trust and the consequences, which is accepted as accurate and sad.
References
Ahmadi, E., Masel, D. T., Metcalf, A. Y., & Schuller, K. (2019). Inventory management of surgical supplies and sterile instruments in hospitals: A literature review. Health Systems, 8(2), 134–151. Web.
FindLaw. (2012). Iturralde v. Hilo medical center USA (2012). Web.
Leong, S., Eom, K., Ishii, K., Aichberger, M. C., Fetz, K., Muller, T., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2022). Individual costs and community benefits: Collectivism and individuals’ compliance with public health interventions. PLOS ONE, 17(11). Web.
Vanderpool D. (2021). The Standard of care. Innovations in clinical neuroscience, 18(7-9), 50–51.