No Breach- Anna
This was a very interesting case study and I really enjoyed getting to break it down. To begin
with the first question, I do think that Leonard has the grounds to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for
breach of expressed contract. Because Leonard signed the contract prior to his surgery that
clearly stated he was refusing any type of treatment that used blood or blood products, the doctor
has an obligation to comply with Leonard’s wishes. If Dr. Farrah-Fowler does not, “a breach of
contract claim may be available in limited circumstances when the medical provider makes an
additional promise or gives a separate warranty.”(Jerrold, L., 2020) By letting Leonard sign
those consent forms, Dr. Farrah-Fowler has promised that she would not give blood or blood
products during the procedure. If Dr. Farrah-Fowler was worried about being sued by Beverly,
Leonard signing the consent forms is a form of contract that would protect the doctor from being
sued by any of Leonard’s family members. Because Leonard seems to be over eighteen and
therefore not under guardianship of Beverly, though she is his mother, Beverly should be
completely irrelevant to Dr. Farrah-Fowler’s decision. As Christians we need to ensure that we
are living according to our word and not breaking promises. The Bible speaks of our yes
meaning yes and our no meaning no. (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Matthew 5:37) If Dr.
Farrah-Fowler was uncomfortable performing this procedure, then she should not have
continued. In regard to question two, my decision would not be different if Leonard still signed
the same consent forms. However, if I was Dr. Farrah-Fowler and Leonard had stated that he
would consider a blood transfusion, if necessary, I would ensure that he does not sign the
contract saying that in no scenario give blood or blood products. Before beginning the surgery, I
would make sure that both Dr. Farrah-Fowler and Leonard were in agreement and that Leonard
was fully informed on the contracts he was signing. It would not make sense for Leonard to sign
a contract with which he was okay with Dr. Farrah-Fowler breaking. Now whether or not my
decision would change if Leonard was seventeen years old would be dependent on whether he
was emancipated by the court to make his own medical decisions. If he had been emancipated
by the court and therefore was able to sign his own medical consent forms, then it would be Dr.
Farrah-Fowler’s obligation to fulfill his wishes. However, if he was not emancipated by the court
then it would be up to Beverly to make the decisions in regards to Leonard's life. “The doctrine
of parental consent, which authorizes parents to make most health care decisions for their minor
children.”(Weithorn, L.A., 2020) Because I do not know whether Leonard was emancipated or
not, I would first determine that in order to better make my decision. If he was emancipated my
opinion would stay the same and I would determine that Leonard would have grounds to sue Dr.
Farrah-Fowler. However, if Leonard was not emancipated by the court, Beverly would be the
one asked to sign the consent forms and not Leonard. Therefore if Leonard was under the age of
eighteen and not emancipated by the court, this scenario would not have happened as Beverly
was in support of the use of blood and blood products.
Reference
Jerrold, L. (2020). Medical malpractice or breach of contract. American Journal of Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 157(2), 278–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.006
King James Bible. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1769)
Weithorn, L. A. (2020). When does a minor’s legal competence to make health care decisions
matter? Pediatrics, 146(Supplement_1). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0818g
Breach- Leia
To have grounds to sue an individual for breach of contract, the contract in question must be
legally binding (Judson & Harrison, 2021, p. 82). The forms signed by Leonard in the case study
meet the four elements that qualify a contract as legally binding.
The element of agreement was satisfied when Leonard accepted Dr. Farrah-Fowler’s medical
treatment (Judson & Harrison, 2021, p. 82). The element of consideration was satisfied with the
exchange of payment for the provided medical treatments (Judson & Harrison, 2021, p.82). The
element of legal subject matter was satisfied because the medical treatment and the agreement to
receive treatment were presented and offered by a licensed medical doctor (Judson & Harrison,
2021, p. 82). The element of contractual capacity was satisfied because Leonard was not deemed
mentally unfit to enter a contract and was therefore capable of clearly understanding the terms
and conditions of the signed documents (Judson & Harrison, 2021, p. 82).
Leonard has grounds to sue Dr. Farrah-Fowler for breach of contract. The moment the patient
understood the specifics of his decision and signed the “Refusal of Treatment, Refusal from
Liability”, the patient took accountability for his refusal and the health complications that could
result. The doctor's primary concern should have been delivering medical treatment to the patient
within the limits of the contract. Providing a blood transfusion went against the patient's consent
and qualifies as a breach of contract. Although Dr. Farrah-Fowler's actions saved the patient’s
life, the outcome was still a result of a breach of contract.
Verbal consent is not enough to void the signed “Refusal of Treatment, Refusal from
Liability” document. Since there would be no documentation that provided proof of consent to a
blood transfusion in the case of a medical emergency, breach of contract would still apply.
Expressed written consent is a vital part of any invasive procedure and treatment administered by
a healthcare practitioner (Gambhir et al., 2014). To remove the threat of breach of contract,
Leonard would need to sign something that provided expressed consent to a blood transfusion.
My decision would be different if a 17-year-old patient signed the documents mentioned in
the case study. Any person under 18 years of age is usually deemed a minor and is considered
incapable of giving consent to medical treatment (McNary, 2014). There are a few special cases
that allow minors to give contractual consent to medical care, but the case of Leonard does not
fall within those parameters. To determine a breach of contract, the patient's legal guardian
would have needed to sign the same documents as mentioned in the case study.
From a biblical standpoint, I would say that the doctor upheld the sanctity of life by deciding
to save the patient with a blood transfusion. Scripture regards human life as a precious and holy
thing, given to us through the breath of God at creation (Genesis 2:7). For this reason, I believe
that Dr. Farrah-Fowler’s decision, while legally wrong, was morally right.
References
Gambhir, R. S., Kakar, H., Singh, S., Kaur, A., & Nanda, T. (2014). Informed Consent: Corner
Stone in Ethical Medical and Dental Practice. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary
Care, 3(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.130284
Judson, K., & Harrison, C. (2021). Law & Ethics for Health Professions (9th ed). McGraw Hill.
McNary, A. (2014, March). Consent to Treatment of Minors. Innovations in clinical
neuroscience. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4008301/
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
