Bioethics Court Cases questions and
answers with solutions
Hurley v. Eddingfield - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: Plantiff was in dire need of medical attention and he called upon Defendant, his
family doctor, to help him. For no reason, Defendant refused. Plantiff died.
Decision: Licensed doctors are not obligated to accept all patients who are in dire need of
medical attention. There is no affirmative duty to be a good citizen and help others in peril if you
have not caused their predicament.
Burditt v. Department of Health and Human Services - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: When the Department of Health and Human Services fined Burditt, a physician, for
violating EMTALA by not providing adequate emergency medical treatment, he argued that
EMTALA effected a public taking of his service without a just compensation in contravention of
the 5th Amendment
Decision: Governmental regulation that affects a group of property interests does not constitute
a taking of property where the regulated group is not required to participate in the regulated
industry.
Wilmington General Hospital v. Manlove - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: A baby was taken by his parents to the emergency room of a hospital, presenting a
history of two days of high temperature, sleeplessness, and diarrhea. The nurse refused to
admit the baby, saying it was hospital policy not to treat a patient who was already under the
care of a physician. The parents returned home and made an appointment to see the child's
doctor that evening, but the child died in the afternoon of bronchial pneumonia. The
administrator of the infant's estate filed suit against the hospital. The trial court denied the
hospital's motion for summary judgment but held that the hospital was liable for refusing to
furnish medical treatment in an emergency because it was a quasi-public institution.
Decision: A private hospital owes the public no duty to accept any patient not desired by it, and
it is not necessary to assign any reason for its refusal to accept a patient for hospital service.
,However, liability on the part of a hospital may be predicated on the refusal of service to a
patient in case of an unmistakable emergency.
Walker v. Pierce - ANSWER STERILIZATION
Summary: An obstetrician's policy of requesting that indigent patients having a third child
voluntarily submit to sterilization following the delivery of the third child was challenged by two
black female patients as an incursion of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process of law,
and equal protection of the law, as well as discrimination on the basis of race and color.
Decision: A physician may condition care on a personal economic philosophy publicly
announced to his patients
Baby K Case - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: Stephanie Keene, better known by the pseudonym Baby K, was an anencephalic baby
who became the center of a major U.S. court case and a debate among bioethicists. She was
born missing most of her brain, only the brainstem, which is the portion of the brain responsible
for autonomic and regulatory functions, such as the control of respiration, the heartbeat and
blood pressure, had developed during pregnancy. Keene's mother had been notified of her
condition following ultrasonography, and was advised to terminate the pregnancy by her
obstetrician and neonatologist but chose to carry the child to term because of "a firm Christian
faith that all life should be protected." The hospital believed that care provided to the baby
would be futile, while the mother believed mechanical breathing support must be provided
during the baby's periodic respiratory crises. Fairfax Hospital doctors strongly advised a Do Not
Resuscitate order for the child, which the mother refused. Stephanie remained on ventilator
support for 6 weeks while Fairfax searched for another hospital to transfer her to, but no other
hospital would accept her. After the baby was weaned off constant ventilator support, the
mother agreed to move the child to a nursing facility, but the baby returned to the hospital
many times for respiratory problems.
Decision: The Court decided that the hospital caring for Keene must put her on a mechanical
ventilator whenever she had trouble breathing. The court interpreted the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require continued ventilation for the infant. The
wording of this act requires that the patients who present with a medical emergency must get
"such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition" before the patient is
transferred to another facility.
, US v. University Hospital - ANSWER RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT
Summary: When parents' decision not to have certain surgery performed on their handicapped
infant was held not to be a violation of federal law, the federal government appealed.
Decision: Section 504 of the Rehab Act does not apply to medical treatment decisions.
Culbertson v. Mernitz - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Patty Jo Culbertson spoke to Dr. Roland B. Mernitz about uncontrollable vaginal
discharge and incontinence. Mernitz determined that she had a mild cystocele, cervicitis, and
multiple fibroid tumors of the uterus. Mernitz recommended the Marshall Marchetti Krantz
procedure, including bladder suspension to pull the bladder into proper position, and
cryosurgery on the infected tip of the cervix. Culbertson chose the MMK and cryosurgery, both
of which were performed by Mernitz. However, her cervix adhered to her vaginal wall
afterwards, a risk which the doctor did not disclose, since he did not consider it a reasonable
risk to disclose, due to its rarity. Culbertson saw another surgeon, who performed a total
abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo oophorectomy and another MMK to correct the
condition.
Decision: Failing to disclose the risk of cervical adhesion did no constitute a violation of a
physician's duty to comply with the appropriate standard of care. Under the medical
malpractice standard in informed consent cases, physicians are required to disclose that which
the reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent physician would disclose under the same or similar
circumstances.
Canterbury v. Spence - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Plantiff experienced back pain. Defendant told Plaintiff that he needed surgery, but
did not inform of the risks of the surgery. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligently withholding
the risk of the surgery.
Decision: Prior to a medical procedure, a physician must disclose to a patient all risks which a
reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo the procedure.
Rizzo v. Schiller - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Doctor delivered the baby with forceps, resulted in head injury.
answers with solutions
Hurley v. Eddingfield - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: Plantiff was in dire need of medical attention and he called upon Defendant, his
family doctor, to help him. For no reason, Defendant refused. Plantiff died.
Decision: Licensed doctors are not obligated to accept all patients who are in dire need of
medical attention. There is no affirmative duty to be a good citizen and help others in peril if you
have not caused their predicament.
Burditt v. Department of Health and Human Services - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: When the Department of Health and Human Services fined Burditt, a physician, for
violating EMTALA by not providing adequate emergency medical treatment, he argued that
EMTALA effected a public taking of his service without a just compensation in contravention of
the 5th Amendment
Decision: Governmental regulation that affects a group of property interests does not constitute
a taking of property where the regulated group is not required to participate in the regulated
industry.
Wilmington General Hospital v. Manlove - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: A baby was taken by his parents to the emergency room of a hospital, presenting a
history of two days of high temperature, sleeplessness, and diarrhea. The nurse refused to
admit the baby, saying it was hospital policy not to treat a patient who was already under the
care of a physician. The parents returned home and made an appointment to see the child's
doctor that evening, but the child died in the afternoon of bronchial pneumonia. The
administrator of the infant's estate filed suit against the hospital. The trial court denied the
hospital's motion for summary judgment but held that the hospital was liable for refusing to
furnish medical treatment in an emergency because it was a quasi-public institution.
Decision: A private hospital owes the public no duty to accept any patient not desired by it, and
it is not necessary to assign any reason for its refusal to accept a patient for hospital service.
,However, liability on the part of a hospital may be predicated on the refusal of service to a
patient in case of an unmistakable emergency.
Walker v. Pierce - ANSWER STERILIZATION
Summary: An obstetrician's policy of requesting that indigent patients having a third child
voluntarily submit to sterilization following the delivery of the third child was challenged by two
black female patients as an incursion of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process of law,
and equal protection of the law, as well as discrimination on the basis of race and color.
Decision: A physician may condition care on a personal economic philosophy publicly
announced to his patients
Baby K Case - ANSWER TAKING ON PATIENTS
Summary: Stephanie Keene, better known by the pseudonym Baby K, was an anencephalic baby
who became the center of a major U.S. court case and a debate among bioethicists. She was
born missing most of her brain, only the brainstem, which is the portion of the brain responsible
for autonomic and regulatory functions, such as the control of respiration, the heartbeat and
blood pressure, had developed during pregnancy. Keene's mother had been notified of her
condition following ultrasonography, and was advised to terminate the pregnancy by her
obstetrician and neonatologist but chose to carry the child to term because of "a firm Christian
faith that all life should be protected." The hospital believed that care provided to the baby
would be futile, while the mother believed mechanical breathing support must be provided
during the baby's periodic respiratory crises. Fairfax Hospital doctors strongly advised a Do Not
Resuscitate order for the child, which the mother refused. Stephanie remained on ventilator
support for 6 weeks while Fairfax searched for another hospital to transfer her to, but no other
hospital would accept her. After the baby was weaned off constant ventilator support, the
mother agreed to move the child to a nursing facility, but the baby returned to the hospital
many times for respiratory problems.
Decision: The Court decided that the hospital caring for Keene must put her on a mechanical
ventilator whenever she had trouble breathing. The court interpreted the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require continued ventilation for the infant. The
wording of this act requires that the patients who present with a medical emergency must get
"such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition" before the patient is
transferred to another facility.
, US v. University Hospital - ANSWER RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT
Summary: When parents' decision not to have certain surgery performed on their handicapped
infant was held not to be a violation of federal law, the federal government appealed.
Decision: Section 504 of the Rehab Act does not apply to medical treatment decisions.
Culbertson v. Mernitz - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Patty Jo Culbertson spoke to Dr. Roland B. Mernitz about uncontrollable vaginal
discharge and incontinence. Mernitz determined that she had a mild cystocele, cervicitis, and
multiple fibroid tumors of the uterus. Mernitz recommended the Marshall Marchetti Krantz
procedure, including bladder suspension to pull the bladder into proper position, and
cryosurgery on the infected tip of the cervix. Culbertson chose the MMK and cryosurgery, both
of which were performed by Mernitz. However, her cervix adhered to her vaginal wall
afterwards, a risk which the doctor did not disclose, since he did not consider it a reasonable
risk to disclose, due to its rarity. Culbertson saw another surgeon, who performed a total
abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo oophorectomy and another MMK to correct the
condition.
Decision: Failing to disclose the risk of cervical adhesion did no constitute a violation of a
physician's duty to comply with the appropriate standard of care. Under the medical
malpractice standard in informed consent cases, physicians are required to disclose that which
the reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent physician would disclose under the same or similar
circumstances.
Canterbury v. Spence - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Plantiff experienced back pain. Defendant told Plaintiff that he needed surgery, but
did not inform of the risks of the surgery. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligently withholding
the risk of the surgery.
Decision: Prior to a medical procedure, a physician must disclose to a patient all risks which a
reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo the procedure.
Rizzo v. Schiller - ANSWER INFORMED CONSENT
Summary: Doctor delivered the baby with forceps, resulted in head injury.
