Match the following clinical scenarios with the medical-legal doctrine or ethical principle that best justifies or describes the situation.
- A patient develops unexplained third-degree burns on their left thigh during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, distant from the surgical field and grounding pads.Res ipsa loquitur
- A hospital is sued for damages after its employed phlebotomist inadvertently causes severe median nerve damage during a routine blood draw.Respondeat superior
- A physician alerts local authorities and a specific individual after a psychiatric patient reveals a concrete, imminent plan to harm that individual.Duty to protect
- A physician delays informing a hemodynamically unstable patient about a family member's death, judging the news could trigger a fatal cardiac event.Therapeutic privilege
Cevap
The unexplained surgical burn matches Res ipsa loquitur. The hospital sued for a phlebotomist's error matches Respondeat superior. Alerting authorities about a threat matches Duty to protect. Withholding distressing news from an unstable patient matches Therapeutic privilege.
Each scenario embodies a specific, highly tested medical-legal concept. Unexplained distant surgical burns represent 'Res ipsa loquitur' because they require exclusive control by the team and intrinsically imply negligence. An employer being sued for an employee's scope-of-practice error is 'Respondeat superior'. Breaching confidentiality for an imminent threat to an identifiable victim is the 'Duty to protect'. Finally, withholding information to prevent acute, severe medical deterioration is 'Therapeutic privilege'.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Core medical-legal doctrines including exceptions to confidentiality (Duty to protect), exceptions to disclosure (Therapeutic privilege), inferred negligence (Res ipsa loquitur), and vicarious liability (Respondeat superior).