DQ 1 1. In the Moore case, a dissented judge wrote: “one searches…in vain for a description of “unprofessional conduct” even in general terms. Herein lies the difficulty with the instant matter. A hospital should not be permitted to adopt standards for the exclusion of doctors which are so vague and ambiguous as to provide a substantial danger of arbitrary discrimination in their application. “Do you believe the author of that opinion would dissent in the Leach case as well? Why or why not?
Both cases are different and based on the information provide a lot was left assumed. Moore was terminated by the Board due to unprofessional actions not utilizing sterile products “gloves”. There was nothing else mentioned regarding Moore. No other expert witnesses addressing Moore ability to perform, physical ailments, or mental condition referenced. The judge’s decision was clearly based on no sufficient supporting evidence. Moore could have been reprimanded at the hospital level for failing to follow standard operating procedures as a first time offense. However performing a surgery without sterilization can use patient harm or death. “Unprofessional conduct” from the hospitals definition needed to be reviewed by HR and clarified to all. In Leach’s case his continuous behavior prompted suspension of duties/licenses and approval by the staff and Board. There are processing in place to proving “unprofessional conduct” that provides several options to hospitals (i.e. documenting behavior, suspension, reassignment of duties or recommend to Board) (Showalter, 2007). No judge would dissent in the Leah’s case. Leah was apparently suffering from alcohol, drug or mental issues that impaired his abilities and altered his behavior. 2. What do you suppose were the “disruptive behaviors” involved in the Moore and Leach cases? Why do the courts not describe them in detail?
It is not clear what the “disruptive behavior” was in either case however in Leah case I would assume he continued to come to the hospital to perform as doctor and had to be escorted of property. Leah may have been an alcoholic or prescription drug abuser or suffered from mental issues that caused him to act out of control. With Moore it stated he was in no “physical or mental” condition to perform I take that as he was suffering from some form of additions or mental state which either could contribute to a negative behavior on the part of the doctor. The court may have determined it was in the best interest of the medical community to not go into details. Both doctors at the time of the court appearances may have been in some type of treatment plan or there was an agreement with the lawyers and court to not discredit during the proceedings due to open records act. 3. Do you agree with the way the courts have viewed their role in relation to judging the hospitals’ decisions? Should the courts have been more active in reexamining the merits of the earlier decisions? Why or why not?
Yes and No, the hospital for both doctors should have seen the deterioration of performance and skill and begin monitoring and questions before the matter escalated out of control. The hospitals have a responsibility to the medical community to ensure trained, licensed and professional staff is at the helm provided quality care to patients. There should be no exception to this. The court and a duty to the patients and medical community to effective address and make decisions when this standard of care is breached by the actions and behavior of any hospital or medical professions.
Reference
Showalter, J. (2007). The Law of Healthcare Administration. Chicago: Health Adminsitration Press.

DQ 2 1. What did the common law consider a bystander’s duty to come to the aid of a person in need? 2. How, if at all is that duty different today? 3. How might if differ depending on who the bystander is?