Analysis of Canterbury v. Spence Health Law Case of 1972 Law Essay (Essay Sample)

Analysis of Canterbury v. Spence Health Law Case of 1972
Student’s First Name, Middle Initial(s), Last Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Instructor’s Name and Title
Assignment Due Date
Analysis of Canterbury v. Spence Health Law Case of 1972
Introduction
Law is a vital discipline when applied in the field of public health. Legal restraints, duties, and powers design the mission and objectives adopted by the agencies dealing with public health and mold the criteria in which it is done. Prominently, law acts as a tool for intervention in the accomplishment of specific goals of public health. Both the laws and their execution poses significant unintended impacts, that are pleasant and unpleasant on the health of a population. Despite public health having a prolonged history in the US, it was listed among the public health fields that were neglected the period public health was perceived as having subjugated infectious ailment (Holland, 2012). For more than two decades now, the infectious disease re-emergence has been a main concern in public health and the increasing knowledge on the health regulation complexity at the native levels, state, and worldwide have reestablished significance of law in public health. This retrospective paper seeks to assess the background of the Canterbury v. Spence health law Case of 1972; and analyze how it was ruled, related ethical concerns, Case impacts on healthcare, the aftermath law changes, and current issues on disclosure of paralysis risks from laminectomy operation.
Case Background and Developments
Plaintiff made consultation to Dr. Spence, the Defendant after undergoing severe back pain. The Defendant arranged a myelogram process for Plaintiff, which indicated that he had suffered a filling fault in the fourth thoracic vertabra of his body. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he was supposed to undertake a laminectomy in the effort of correcting what he doubted to be a disc rupture (Sutherland, 2020). The Defendant failed to let Plaintiff know the details surrounding the recommended operation and the Plaintiff did not make an inquiry on them. The Defendant communicated the seriousness of the operation to the Plaintiff’s mother, but claimed that it was not such serious than other operations. The operation was then conducted by the Defendant who learnt about the poor condition of the Plaintiff’s swollen spinal cord. Defendant worked out what was possible with an aim to clear the pressure and let the Plaintiff on the bed recuperating. The Plaintiff then tripped from the bed side and suffered paralysis almost completely.