APRIL 1, 2013
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Jerry McCall is Dr. William's office assistant. He has received professional training as both a medical assistant and a LPN. He is handling all the phone calls while the receptionist is at lunch. A patient calls and says he must have a prescription refill for Valium, an antidepressant medication, called in right away to his pharmacy, since he is leaving for the airport in thirty minutes. He says that Dr. Williams is a personal friend and always gives him a small supply of Valium when he has to fly. No one except Jerry is in the office at this time. What should he do?
Does Jerry’s medical training qualify him to issue this refill order? Why or why not?
The reply is no, for a various of justification. The most evident purpose is that Jerry isn't certified to meet the demand for a refill. Despite the fact that Jerry has preparation as a MA and is an LPN, he's occupied as an office assistant in this situation. Even when he was working as such, he wouldn't have approval to refill medicine without an mandate from the doctor; to take action it might damage his license. Valium isn't a medicine that individual refills without assessing the patient’s record and acquiring suitable consent.
Would it make a difference if the medication requested were for control of high blood pressure that the patient critically needs on a daily basis? Why or why not?
A demand to refill medicine comparable to one utilized day by day to regulate high blood pressure could be much less doubtful and Jerry could really feel extra apt to refill it as a result of it's essential to sustaining the patient’s physical condition. However, Jerry doesn't have authorized consent to call in any refills and not using a doctor’s mandate or occupied as an office assistant. If Jerry calls in the refill and the patient has an adverse reaction while flying, is Jerry protected from a lawsuit under the doctrine of respondent superior?
The doctrine of respondent superior is a standard-legislation doctrine that expresses an employer is responsible for encounters carried out by a worker when the proceedings happen throughout the possibility of employment (Medscape today, 2002). If Jerry was to call in for the refill for the patient in this situation and the patient endured an antagonistic response, Jerry wouldn't have safety from lawsuits under the doctrine. In this situation, Jerry could be appearing beyond of the possibility of the responsibilities designated to him, subsequently; his employer is probably not accountable, however in the end the court must make that conclusion.
What is your advice to Jerry?
The advice I can give to Jerry is in a few methods without leading to unethical actions. The patient is demanding a refill of medicine right away; the demand itself is impracticable. Patients mustn't anticipate to acquire a prescription called in instantly when demanded. Jerry must clarify to the patient that he have to call in refills a minimum of a day if necessary, to permit time for the doctor to do the order and the pharmacy to arrange it. The majority of workplaces have a policy on prescription refills; Jerry must consult with this policy when talking to the patient. Jerry may additionally attempt to get in contact with the doctor by phone and inquire if he can call the refill in for the patient himself. Identify major legal and ethical issues that may affect Jerry’s decision.
To approve the patient’s demand could be an infringement of what's legal and ethical. Legally, Jerry is constrained from executing the demand of the patient; he doesn't have an order from the doctor and is occupied as an office assistant in this case in point. Ethically, to refill the medicine can be disrupting the reliance of the doctor who delegated his facility to Jerry