FACTS
Barbara Helling, the complainant in the case of Helling v. Carey, was affected by primary open-angle glaucoma, which is a disease of impeded drainage of the eye fluid resulting in vision loss. From 1959 to 1968, she was under the care of Dr. Thomas F. Carey and Dr. Robert C. Laughlin, both ophthalmologists. Initially, they specialized in curing myopia (nearsightedness) and associated problems. Presumably, by the multiple consultations, glaucoma was mistakenly diagnosed until October 1968, leading to partial blindness at present. Such a late diagnosis and resultant vision loss were the main grounds for the legal action against the defendants.
ISSUE(S)
The main dispute is whether the defendants’ omission to test for glaucoma among patients under 40 routinely qualifies for medical negligence.
DECISION
The trial court and Court of Appeals initially ruled on the appellants’ side. However, the Supreme Court of Washington has been reviewing the case.
REASONS
The Helling v. Carey lawsuit was influenced by the “prudent person” rule that provided that doctors should have carried out routine pressure tests for glaucoma at patients 40 years old and below at the right time. This compulsion was deemed as an injunction granted to them in the way to safeguard themselves from the damage brought about by undiagnosed glaucoma, even when the state-of-the-art industry standards did not back it up at the time. Such courts pointed out that it was unacceptable for providers to only adhere to industry practice, and more was needed to prove that they had done everything possible to protect the vision in the early stages of the patients.
The court drew its ruling from the medical experts who had testified in support. Their evidence on the low prevalence of glaucoma among patients younger than 40 years was just a single case in 25,000. However, the court implies that scarce ones should pay much attention and act preemptively, which focuses on the pressurization tests on a regular basis for the prompt discovery and avoidance of damage that glaucoma causes. These tests, being harmless and known for their effectiveness in providing early diagnosis, became the necessary priority and were carried out.
Additionally, the court held that the mere cutting of corners by the practitioners to save money using a shortcut method of treating patients should not avoid their liabilities. It implied that if the standard of care is below reasonable prudence and, consequently, it is necessary to protect patients, there is a responsibility to determine the diligence of care that is needed to protect patients. This ruling accentuated the court’s dedication to prioritizing patient protection rather than the norm of industries. At the same time, it emphasized the responsibility of healthcare providers to practice according to the ideals of reasonable prudence and preventive risk management.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The instance in Helling v. Carey is a case that echoes a massive part of the healthcare administration’s managerial implicationsFor example, it underlines the primary function of healthcare administrators, treating the industry code as a reference point rather than an end goal and contemporary evidence basis as a source of planned activity prevention to eliminate the likelihood of litigations due to inappropriate care. Furthermore, medical societies should constantly conduct audits and updates to match the best treatment practices and their legal requirements and perform various assessments, even in rare conditions with grave consequences. Moreover, a comprehensive risk assessment process should be in place, providers and patients should be enabled to communicate freely, staff should be groomed through continuing education, and client-centeredness should be entertained before any patient evaluation can be done. Essentially, Helling v. Carey presumes a standard used on reasonableness to make interventions in medical practice and emphasizes preventive actions for patients and doctors against harm and law risks. This regional healthcare board heard this case as an exemplary example for industry administrators to prioritize patients’ safety and quality of care while not limiting themselves to standardized industry models since the latter approach seems daunting in healthcare management.
References
Washington Supreme Court. (1974). Helling v. Carey, 83 Wn.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981.
write