Please read the cases thoroughly and provide an analysis of the legal and ethica

Please read the cases thoroughly and provide an analysis of the legal and ethical issues presented in the case. Your analysis should address these essential items and questions:
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources (e.g., websites, articles, etc). Cite your sources using APA.
What are the ethical theories most appropriate to apply this case and why?
What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case? BIOETHICS, Micro-ethics: individual’s view of right & wrong.
Who are the stakeholders?
What are the morally relevant facts?
What possible courses of action are available?
What are the predictable effects of each action?
Which set of possible outcomes is relatively better?
Other formal questions included with the cases, such as your final decision. Your decision will not be evaluated as “right or wrong.” It must be supported though, by answering the questions above.
Include your own thoughts/opinions as well as materials to support these.
Note: The commentaries should try to take into account ALL sides to the issue. A paper that discusses only one course of action or one effect or outcome will result in a low grade.
You should provide more than 1 page per case to thoroughly address the questions/issues. Be sure to include the questions presented with the case (IN THE TEXTBOOK).
All references consulted (including the text) should be referenced appropriately within your response—APA style—and a list of references should be supplied at the end of your document.
Please submit cases to the Assignment tab, following these assignment protocols:
Microsoft Word document with 1” margins all around, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, and double-spaced work. Failure to follow assignment protocols will result in a 10% loss in possible points. Additionally, cases should be free from grammatical errors.
here is the case:CASE: THE COURT WAS APPALLED
In Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction,10 the plaintiff, Tomcik, was in the custody of the defendant, a penal institution. Pursuant to the defendant’s policy of medically evaluating all new inmates, on May 26, 1989, Dr. Evans gave Tomcik a medical examination. He testified that his physical evaluation included an examination of Tomcik’s breasts; however, he stated that his examination was very cursory. The day after her examination, Tomcik examined her own breasts. At that time, she discovered a lump in her right breast, which she characterized as being about the size of a pea. She then sought an additional medical evaluation at the defendant’s medical clinic. Testimony indicated that fewer than half of the inmates who sign the clinic list are actually seen by medical personnel the next day. Also, inmates who are not examined on the day for which the list is signed are given no preference in being examined on the following day. In fact, their names are simply deleted from the daily list, and their only recourse is to continually sign the list until they are examined. The evidence indicated that from May 27 on, Tomcik constantly signed the clinic list and provided the reason she was requesting medical care. A nurse finally examined Tomcik on June 21. The nurse wrote in her nursing notes that Tomcik had a “moderate large mass in right breast.” The nurse recognized that the proper procedure was to measure such a mass, but she testified that this was impossible because no measuring device was available. The missing “measuring device” to which she alluded was a simple ruler. The nurse concluded that Evans, the original doctor who had examined Tomcik, should examine her again. On June 28, Evans examined Tomcik again. He recorded in the progress notes that she had “a mass on her right wrist. Will send her to hospital and give her Benadryl for allergy she has.”11 Evans meant to write “breast,” not “wrist.” He again failed to measure the size of the mass on Tomcik’s breast. Tomcik was transferred to the Franklin County Prerelease Center on September 28. On September 30, a nurse there examined Tomcik; the nurse recorded that she had a “golf ball-sized” lump in her right breast. Tomcik was transported to the hospital on October 27, where Dr. Walker treated her. A mammogram indicated that Tomcik’s tumor was probably malignant. This diagnosis was confirmed by a biopsy performed on November 9. Tomcik was released from confinement on November 13. On November 16, Dr. Lidsky, a surgeon employed outside of the penal institution, examined Tomcik. Lidsky noted the existence of the lump in her breast and determined that the size of the mass was approximately 4 to 5 centimeters and somewhat fixed. He performed a modified radical mastectomy on the plaintiff’s right breast, removing nearly the entire breast. Tomcik alleged that it was the delay in her examination that ultimately led to the removal of her right breast; had she been seen more timely, much of the breast could have been spared. The defendant, the corrections department, contended that even if its employees were negligent, Tomcik’s cancer was so advanced when discovered that it would nevertheless have required removal of her breast.12 The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the delay in providing treatment to Tomcik fell below the medically acceptable standard of care. The court was “appalled” that the physician had characterized his evaluation as a medical examination and that what he described as a “cursory breast examination” should be considered medically sufficient. It seemed incredible to the court that a physician would deliberately choose not to take the additional few minutes or seconds to palpate thoroughly the sides of the breasts, which is a standard minimally intrusive cancer detection technique.
Ethical and Legal Issues
1. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Discuss your answer.
2. Discuss why the court was appalled.
3. What ethical values were lacking by the caregivers?

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more