To determine duty or legal obligation in a malpractice,interpretation of some aspects is necessary some of which includethe physician, the circumstances and the profession’s standards. InKarp v. Cooley, the defendant was in good standing and bestowedreasonable treatment. He selected an option that seemed to be thebest for his patient. The circumstances, plaintiff’s bad heartcondition, required him that he fully disclose the nature of thesurgery. The physician owed the duty of informing patient about thepossible risks of the operation, as well. The doctor legally barredhimself from damages by raising affirmative defense. He did notjust follow what other doctors might do; instead he did what hethought it was right thing to do (Showalter,2020).
In this case, the defendant, Dr. Cooley performed his duty byinforming the patient, Mr. Karp, about expected risks of theoperation and having the patient to read and sign an informedconsent. The consent was obtained in writing and was recorded,providing a proof that the doctor did not breach his duty. Thepatient, Mr. Karp who had developed cardiovascular disease sinceyoung age, was waiting for heart transplant. However, beforefinding a heart doner, Mr. Karp had agreed to implant a temporaryartificial heart, if necessary. Due to the unique and sensitivenature of this procedure that was in experimental phase, Dr. Cooleyknew that he needed to describe the procedure to Mr. Karp in detailbefore signing the consent. As a responsible physician, heperformed his duty by informing the patient that the success ofprocedure might not be guaranteed. Later, the artificial heart wasplaced, since Mr. Karp’s heart had failed but eventually thepatient died.
By assuming the risks, Dr. Cooley neither promised nor gave anyhopeful statements to the patient about the outcome. He did notbreach his duty and therefore, was not held liable for Mr. Karp’sdeath. The cause of Mr. Karp’s death was not as the result of errorin surgery (Showalter, 2020). Additionally, the reason the doctorhad to follow the experimental method of artificial heart beforethe standards methods, was that Mr. Karp’s heart was failing andthe procedure could not be delayed. Mr. Karp knowingly andvoluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
According to Justia US Law, “No medical expert opinion was given attrial to even suggest that Dr. Cooley …was negligent in any way intheir diagnosis or surgical technique and that any such allegednegligence was the proximate cause of death” (Justia , n.d.).
The physician did not perform any failure in providing care tohis patient. He used the degree of care that medical doctors of thesame school of practice would perform. “The Texas definition ofnegligence is failure to use ordinary care, which is use of thatdegree of care that medical doctors of ordinary knowledge and skillof the same school of practice of this or a similar community woulduse in the diagnosis, treatment, and surgery of patients under sameor similar circumstances.” (Justia , n.d.).
Patients rely on doctors’ medical opinion and expertise to receivethe best care and to survive. Therefore, medical profession as anoble profession needs to be established on honesty. Physicianshave the duty to provide care to their patients by making the rightdecisions, giving the right care and informing patient aboutprocedures, treatment or any other medical measures and conducts(Goguen, n.d.). The question is how certain physicians can be aboutpatients’ understanding of terms and conditions of their medicaltreatments and how optimist they are for the outcomes.
Should physicians in different parts of the US have to apply thesame standard of care? How much leeway to physicians around thecountry have to treat patients differently?
