Case Scenario 2 Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Scenario 2 - Case Study Example Although there is an excellent set of guidelines, they are somewhat dry and by themselves do not convey the urgency and relevance that they should, (Bailey& Burch, 2005). As a professional behavioural analyst, the codes of conduct prescribe a confidentiality clause that calls for the adherence to strict rules and regulations when it comes to revealing information about patients to third parties. Although this is the case, it is important on the other hand to keep records of the success stories of the well treated and recovered patients such as the one the former student asks. He treated a patient and he can be noted as one of the success stories in his career as the dilemma of data disclosure creeps in.Bailey & Burch, (2005) are of the opinion that it is inhumane for a professional to misuse and maltreat a patient who is not aware of his rights and privileges and hence cannot speak up as in this case, the parameters of the situation being the client whose guardian is portrayed as too hectic to be disturbed with matters that involve the disclosure agreements of the successful patient treated with aggressive behavior issues.The former behaviour analyst student, now in the professional field has faces a dilemma in the disclosure agreements that were not mention when the treatment began in the approvals signed. The Basis of the Conflict There is conflicting interests and unclear standards as the practisingbehaviour analyst is torn between the interests of the client as well as the interests of his career advancement in the publication of his success story of the patient involved. This conflict of interest of the two parties is based on the assumption that the guardian is too busy to be disturbed on signing the relevant documents that can be drafted to allow the professional to use data from the successful treatment of the patient in a publication. There are high chances that the guardian will not be able to read such a publication but on the other hand runs the ris k that the case might generate so much public interest that the guardian will be forced to spare some time and get to know the contents of the publication. It is also eating the conscience of the former student that he might be breaching professional ethical conduct in releasing the data to the public bearing in mind that there was no disclosure agreement signed prior to the treatment as well as there was no intention to use the data for such purposes. Available options At this point, the former student has the option of going ahead to use the data without the consent of the client and in case the publication generates a heated debate and the disclosure agreements come under scrutiny, he should be ready to face the consequences of his actions. On the other hand, the publication could be a basis to elevate his career and gain more clients. He also has the option of tracking down the guardian and sweet talk him to create time to draft and sign the necessary disclosure agreements befor e the publication is done. This will avoid the legal tussles that may ensure if the client finds his rights violated while on the other hand it is a long and tedious process that will involve costs to the lawyers. He also has the option of letting go of the publication but as well include the necessary disclosure documentation in any other treatment of the next patients. This will ensure that any other conflicts of interests will not arise. Best Course of Action and Outcome The best

TORT LAW - F Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

TORT LAW - F - Essay Example The difference between the two thus far developed has been a cause of grave concern for common law, but the distinction has been made evident by recent cases to a great extent, especially with the presence of principles laid out in Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [1992]1 and McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983]2. What is Nervous Shock? Nervous shock is described as an array of recognizable psychiatric diseases which are over and beyond the usual distresses a person encounters upon witnessing the scene of an accident. Mere emotional setbacks that are considered ordinary, including fear, grief and worry are not considered sufficient at law3. Thus, ailments such as clinical depression, anxiety neurosis, and post traumatic stress disorder fall into the category of nervous shock, which admittedly is a label underplayed as it represents a larger than normal degree of psychiatric damage4 than simply suggesting an element of shock. As Lord Jauncey clarified in Alcock at 419, the c laimant must suffer a â€Å"recognizable psychiatric illness† in order to justify cause for action (Chadwick v British Transport Commission [1967]5). Thus, it must be observed that nervous shock is more aptly treated as personal injury to the mind as different from personal injury to the body. It follows that the first step to determining whether a claim of psychiatric damage is valid at law would be to categorize the kind of harm experienced, and whether it was serious enough to give rise to a duty of care on the part of the defendant, as normal fear and anxiety is exempt from such duty and people are expected to be of reasonable firmness capable of dealing with normal distresses6. Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Harm If a claim for psychiatric harm stems from one in negligence, the same principles of establishing a claim apply. Thus, the four requirements of a negligent act must be present, namely the duty of care, breach of that duty, causation and the damage resulting f rom that breach which must not be characterized as too remote. The law related to duty of care is illustrated well by the principles established in Donoghue v Stevenson7 and Caparo Industries v Dickman8. The duty of care is established when a sufficient relationship can be established by virtue of neighborhood and proximity of relationship so that the claimant can be reasonably foreseen to be injured by the defendant’s act and whether establishing such a duty would be fair, just and reasonable in the present case9. In order to establish this duty, the courts take heed from recognized duty situations (Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985])10. Thus, a manufacturer may be sued by a consumer for a defective product which causes physical harm (Donogue), the driver of a car who engages in an accident but only causes psychiatric damage but no physical damage to the victim he collides with may also be liable (Page v Smith [1995])11 but the employee-employer relationship does not g ive rise to an automatic duty of care in terms of psychiatric injury suffered by rescuers after an incident (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police12). Since the damage we are concerned with is psychiatric, the harm may not just extend to the victims who are immediately affected by a risk of personal injury resulting from the negligent act, but also