H1041 Professional and Managerial Skills

Introduction

Ethical concept in professional practice is linked to the approaches of maintained behaviours and practices in order to deliver the sustainable and effective service in accordance with the code of conducts and practice implied in an organisation. Every professional practice is required to maintain in ethical guidelines that include honesty, transparency, accountability, confidently, respect, obedience to law, and loyalty for the organisation and customers served in the organisation (Bryden and Storey, 2011). Lack of any of these aspects in a profession can bring the legal consequences to the professional and many times for the organisation as well. The objective of this paper is t to identify ethical and legal aspects linking to the negligence that are challenging in practices of given case studies and putting them into legal processing. This paper is aimed to identify possibilities or circumstances allowing to impose negligence over the people and deciding the legal penalties imposed with comparing two ethical cases of gross negligence (Griffith, 2018).

Professional And Ethical Issues

There are many actions in professional practices as nursing, healthcare, airlines, working, banking, and many other services and these are required to perform their activities in accordance with the ethical and legal practices of code of conduct of conducts, there are many activities performed lead issues, accident, risks, and many times high loss to people and these impose negligence of duties over them and require the organisation to analyse the issues and act with in justified manner (Griffith, 2020). The organisations engaged in any act of negligence is liable to all damages and issues occurred due to negligence and ignorance of safety measures. For instance, a constructing organisation is liable involve effective employee safety measures and safety for others, any act occurring due to negligence and caused injury to any person is possible to cause issues to the organisation and person responsible to causing damages (Lawrenson and Braithwaite, 2018).

Most authorities have internally imposed codes of practice that associates of the occupation essential to follow to stop and prevent manipulation or exploitation of the customer and to preserve the veracity and repute of the occupation. In many nations there is some constitutional guideline of professional ethical morals and standards such as the statutory bodies regulating to regulate midwifery and nursing occupational in England and Wales and many other organisations to control ethical activities of organisation (Morris, Chawla and Francis, 2019).

Case Scenario 1

An 18-year-old Wayne Jowett was an outpatient at the Queen’s Medical Centre Nottingham was given a wrong injection that caused him death. Doctor Feda Mulhem was treating Wayne Jowett and he ordered an injection of Vincristine into the spine. Mr Jowett was receiving two drugs Vincristine and Cytosine among which Vincristine is used for be injected into a vein and Cytosine is used to be injected into the spine (O’Cleirigh and Conefrey, 2021). The supervising doctor Mulhem asked Dr Morton to vaccinate the Vincristine into the patient’s spine, after this incident patient died after one month and in investigation it was identified that there had been series of organisational issues and errors. According to the investigation it was identified that consultant involved in the case left message to the nurses to call him to deal with Wayne Jowett but this was not practiced (Plunkett, 2018). There was lack of communication and lack of understanding between doctors that lead assumptions among them and many issues. manslaughter by gross negligence was found linked and this charged Dr Mulhem a total of 18 months imprisonment.

Matter Of Gross Negligence

Manslaughter is a form of slaughter, less culpable than murder. Manslaughter a legal term used to define the murder of another human being. Intended manslaughter varies from murder since of reduced accountability of the suspect. As in the case of R v Bateman 1925 gross negligence can be assumed if any person prove that a duty breach occurred and this breach result in death is found relevant to the manslaughter in the case (R v Bateman, [1925]). In the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman the term duty of care was described as the obligation to protect those in care from harm. Breaching of duties in care leading high risk to patient life or causing his/her death is charged with manslaughter. Everyone involved in caring activities in healthcare are charged foe the same if they are responsible for breaching of their duties and resulting in death of patient (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, [1990]).

Grounds For Prosecution In The Case Study

The case study of Mr Wayne Jowett involves high grounds of negligence that lead the breach of duty of nurse and doctors involved in care and caused wrong drug inject to him. This act was manslaughter causing high issues to the patient and lead death. The Institute of Medicine's view is clear: “The problem is not bad people; the problem is that the system [of medical care] needs to be made safer.” Errors in medical area are possible to cause death of patients, an error is a catastrophe or inability to accomplish an act as planned (Szawarski, 2014). Errors can rise in arrangement actions or in execution. Errors in scheduling and medical planning are technically known as mistakes such mistakes are made due to poor knowledge, poor communication, and lack of understanding the importance of duties can lead these mistakes and cause negligence. Here Doctor Feda Mulhem, Dr Morton, nurse, and the hospital pharmacist were in breach of their duties to deliver care for Wayne Jowett and responsible for prosecute for error (Szawarski, 2014).

Case Scenario 2

In another case Pilot Andy Hill performing low-level aerobatics display at the Shoreham Air Show was controlling Hawker Hunter and the aircraft, G-BXFI crashed on A27 Shoreham Bypass road which resulted in death of 11 people and injuries to 12 people and direct reason for death was crash. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) investigated the accident on the basis of no-blame basis and report found that lack of effective safety measures for the spectators in the ground was organisational mistake and fully identified as breach of duty. Hill was investigated in another investigation by Sussex Police with a view of prosecution that charged Hill with manslaughter by gross negligence and acquitted of all charges in 2019. Both investigation report identified the negligence of safety for the spectators as the main reason for the result occurred in death and injuries of the spectators. As liability for the safety of people involved in adventures activities is core liability of organisation and breaching that is manslaughter (Szawarski, 2014).

Matter Of Gross Negligence

Safety management and development in the aviation industry is primary duty of care for the people involved in aviation activities, the duty of care means to manage safety management and failure in these resulting in death is kind of manslaughter that led gross negligence in the end. The Air Accident Investigation branch UK is liable to investigate all serious incidents and accidents and to determine the nature of accident (Plunkett, 2018). Negligence is failure of a person or organisation who are in legal duties to organise and deliver the care for in the name of their service completions and their failure leading death to customer can be challenging to implement and identify, ignoring the safety measures is kind of gross negligence that to reason predictable serious injury or harm to persons, property, or both hence this imposes criminal liability over the person and organisation, here the organisation safety measures were inappropriate and turn in reason of crash.

Grounds For Prosecution

According to the first investigation report based on no-blame basis identified the negligence of duty of care of the organisation that ignored the safety and precaution measures of bypass roads and people sitting in h primary reasonability of Mr Hill and organisation was to arrange effective environment of sitting that may result in protecting the viewers in case of any harm or accidents. Occurrence of accident is normal and aviation industries practicing the testing activities are important to follow the measures and standards of care, here the code of practices also involves the safety precautionary guidelines for the management and handling same for others. Another report in the case found Mr Hill and organisation guilty for ignoring the safety for the spectators and found guilty for neglecting their primary duty of care in the organization and arranging and performing low-level aerobatics display at the Shoreham Air Show.

Comparison Of Prosecution

Both the post given above are representing the breach of duty of care from the professionals however the first case of medical negligence is found purely related to manslaughter happened due to gross negligence of a person and in second case the organisation itself was the core reason for the available imperfect arrangement of the show that leads the negligence liability over the organisation (Plunkett, 2018). Both studies represent the matter of gross negligence but in the first case is stated liable for negligence that caused death to the person and in second of the study organisational ignorance in management was reason for the accident caused deaths. The term medical negligence includes any kind of act that directly or indirectly causing harm are not accepted and breach of duty is can result in many other challenging issues (O’Cleirigh and Conefrey, 2021).

Discussion Of Grounds For Professional Prosecution

Prosecuting professionals in medical care is result of their negligence and breach of duty resulting in manslaughter but there are certain grounds according to statutory bodies required to be proved to bring claim of prosecution over a medical professional (Morris, Chawla and Francis, 2019). The grounds are if any medical misdiagnose patient or fail to diagnose patient, ignore or misread laboratory result, discharge premature, perform surgery with errors, and improper medication and dosage that cause severe harm or death of the person is enough to bring claim against the medical staff (Lawrenson and Braithwaite, 2018). These grounds are required for nnegligence claims and must prove in court: duty, breach, relationship, and damages/harm. Every nursing and medical practitioner is required to perform his/her duty in accordance with ethical and legal guidelines of code of conduct, they are supposed to manage their duty for care failing in these can result in the gross negligence and treating person for imprisonment. Any person imprisoned in medical professional for duty breach and negligence bear consequences during and after trial and even after completion of imprisonment it is challenging for a person to manage practice again in the profession and attain the same for the livelihood and life management after negligence (Lawrenson and Braithwaite, 2018).

Conclusion

The ethical and legal liabilities of professionals are directed and regulated internally with implemented code of conducts, these codes of conducts are based on statutory regulations of nation, professionals are important to manage their duties with legal and ethical management. this report based on identifying and analysing the prosecution of professionals for their negligence act is required to breach of duty for care and that result in manslaughter. This paper concludes that a professional person is assumed to be in prosecution if breach of duty and negligence is proven against him/her and they are liable to represent in the court and are imprisoned by the laws if found guilty in the court.

References

Bryden, D. and Storey, I., 2011. Duty of care and medical negligence. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain, 11(4), pp.124-127.

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] [1990] 2 AC 605 ALL ER 568 (House of Lords).

Griffith, R., 2018. District nurses now less likely to face prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter. British Journal of Community Nursing, 23(3), pp.140-142.

Griffith, R., 2020. The elements of negligence liability in nursing. British Journal of Nursing, 29(3), pp.176-177.

Lawrenson, A. and Braithwaite, G., 2018. Regulation or criminalisation: What determines legal standards of safety culture in commercial aviation?. Safety Science, 102, pp.251-262.

Morris, C., Chawla, G. and Francis, T., 2019. Clinical negligence: duty and breach. British Dental Journal, 226(9), pp.647-648.

O’Cleirigh, J. and Conefrey, J., 2021. Gross Negligence Manslaughter In The Healthcare Sector - Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences - UK. [online] Mondaq.com. Available at: <https://www.mondaq.com/uk/healthcare/739550/gross-negligence-manslaughter-in-the-healthcare-sector> [Accessed 20 April 2021].

Plunkett, J., 2018. The Duty of Care in Negligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

R v Bateman [1925] Cr App R 19.

Szawarski, P., 2014. Classic Cases Revisited — Medical Manslaughter, Corporate Liability and the Death of Sean Phillips. Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 15(2), pp.117-121.

Need to wrap up assignments on time? Stringent deadlines getting the better of you? Our in-house academic papers writers are available round the clock to work on your assignments and share the same much ahead of the deadline. From offering Finance assignment help to backing you up with Law assignment help in London, we are right here to assist you through the thick and thin of assignment stringencies. So, the next time you would worry about a narrow deadline or wonder, “Can I pay someone to do my assignment on time?” count on us and never look back.