Ifthe decision were to be opposite, then it would not be easy for themto lose a case entailing negligence. That is, the practice ofpodiatry would be hard to lose a negligence case. This is because theplaintiffs would be forced to look for other podiatrists to act astheir expert witnesses which in this case is highly unlikely.
Itis quite fair for related health practitioners to be judged inaccordance to the physicians’ levels. Regardless of what medicineor school one is ascribed to, they are all in the same anatomy. Thatis, all the health practitioners are guided or rather entailed in thesame framework irrespective of who is working on it. It is therefore,justifiable to judge them by the values of physicians.
OnJackson v. power case, the hospital is liable to anything thathappens to its patients. This is because, organizations such as ERIcan be considered to be a third party in the patient hospitalrelationship. Therefore, whatever happens to a patient duringtreatment, is the hospital’s responsibility. However, the “nocontrol” provision is not fair. Theprovision that hospitals have no control over the particularphysician be it in terms of schedule, credentials and supervisionamong others, is quite misplaced and unfair to the hospital itself.Hospitals need to exercise some means of control even with limitedcapacities. In that respect, the clause should not be utilized indetermining the outcomes of a case. Additionally, such casesundermine the roles of medical care in improving the health caresystem. Generally therefore, the principles outlined within thecontract can be deemed to be unfair to the hospital especially inexercising control. Since any detrimental effects impact on thehospital directly, they ought to exercise some degree of control [CITATION Ope99 l 1033 ].
OpenJurist. (1999). Marshall v. Yale Podiatry Group . Retrieved from Marshall v. Yale Podiatry Group : http://openjurist.org/818/f2d/1337/illinois-psychological-association-v-falk