5. What are the morally relevant facts?
A fact that posed as misconduct is the lack in compassion and commitment from both the physician Dr. Evans and the employees at the medical clinic in the institution. Because of the fact that Dr. Evans failed to identify the lump in Tomcik’s breast as a result of a passively performed examination, he did not follow his obligation, as a physician, to deliver the high-quality care that patients should receive. In regard of the employees at the medical clinic, they did not give Tomcik immediate medical attention, even after she stated the reason why she was requesting help from a health care professional when signing the clinic list for almost practically a whole month. Based on this evidence, it is indicative …show more content…
When she first discovered the lump from conducting her own breast self-exam, Tomcik could have been more persistent in requesting medical care since carrying a lump is a serious condition. The cancer cells in her breast could have possibly metastasized to other tissues/organs in her body by traveling via the circulatory or lymphatic system and put her life in jeopardy (“Metastatic Cancer,” 2016). Although Tomcik did the right thing of signing the clinic list and providing the reason she was requesting medical care, she could have possibly tried to be more firm and confrontational, demanding a meeting with a supervisor or whoever that has the most authority at the …show more content…
At that point, the lump may have then been found and taken care of more quickly. However, as the corrections department had stated to the Ohio Court of Appeals, I agree that Tomcik would unfortunately still have to have her breast removed – regardless of the timing – since the cancer was at an advanced stage and removing the entire breast would eliminate the chances of cancer reappearing. Therefore, instead of Tomcik claiming that it was “the delay in her examination that ultimately led to the removal of her right breast” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 203), she should have argued that there was a possibility of her losing her life due to the delay in diagnosis and treatment. Tomcik may have been devastated over the cosmetic issue, but the mortality issue may have held a greater value in regards to the long delay in
A fact that posed as misconduct is the lack in compassion and commitment from both the physician Dr. Evans and the employees at the medical clinic in the institution. Because of the fact that Dr. Evans failed to identify the lump in Tomcik’s breast as a result of a passively performed examination, he did not follow his obligation, as a physician, to deliver the high-quality care that patients should receive. In regard of the employees at the medical clinic, they did not give Tomcik immediate medical attention, even after she stated the reason why she was requesting help from a health care professional when signing the clinic list for almost practically a whole month. Based on this evidence, it is indicative …show more content…
When she first discovered the lump from conducting her own breast self-exam, Tomcik could have been more persistent in requesting medical care since carrying a lump is a serious condition. The cancer cells in her breast could have possibly metastasized to other tissues/organs in her body by traveling via the circulatory or lymphatic system and put her life in jeopardy (“Metastatic Cancer,” 2016). Although Tomcik did the right thing of signing the clinic list and providing the reason she was requesting medical care, she could have possibly tried to be more firm and confrontational, demanding a meeting with a supervisor or whoever that has the most authority at the …show more content…
At that point, the lump may have then been found and taken care of more quickly. However, as the corrections department had stated to the Ohio Court of Appeals, I agree that Tomcik would unfortunately still have to have her breast removed – regardless of the timing – since the cancer was at an advanced stage and removing the entire breast would eliminate the chances of cancer reappearing. Therefore, instead of Tomcik claiming that it was “the delay in her examination that ultimately led to the removal of her right breast” (Pozgar, 2016, p. 203), she should have argued that there was a possibility of her losing her life due to the delay in diagnosis and treatment. Tomcik may have been devastated over the cosmetic issue, but the mortality issue may have held a greater value in regards to the long delay in