DR Smith and Dr. Menhoit. Man Slaughter
Case Scenario
Andrew, a 12-year-old boy, was brought into the facility on the morning of 7th march which was on a Monday. Andrew is the given medication and discharged with the advice of coming back for more samples. On Friday morning of the same week, Andrew returns to the facility as the condition had worsened. Andrew is referred to Dr. Smith who reads the notes and gets concerned over Andrews condition. Dr. Smith refers Andrew to surgery, but Bethany refuses Andrew to be taken to surgery as Andrew is rather to unwell. Dr. Smith instead offers Andrew some soluble paracetamol to calm Andrews temperature down. Two hours later, the temperature rises; Bethany gets concerned and calls the surgery. Dr. Menhoit picks up the phone and opts that Andrew to come for Surgery on Monday morning. Unfortunately, Andrew is diseased on the early hours of Sunday morning. Dr. Smith and Dr. Menhenoit Andrew then charged in respect of Andrews death with manslaughter by gross Negligence. Both the two doctors wish to plead guilty to the charges. Philip, on the other hand, was with Dr. Menhenoit when he began mourning the death of Andrew. When Dr. Menhenoit came forwards to comfort Philip. In that Heist, Mr. Menhenoit falls on the chair. Philip gets confused and assumes that Dr. Menhenoit is attacking. Philip them ends up Punching Dr. Menhenoit in the chest.
Introduction
The law on man slaughter, specifically gross negligence man slaughter is rather flawed because unlike many areas in law it involves the jury in determining what is not or what is in regards to the case. Both manslaughter and murder are fatal offenses which are referred to as homicide offenses, and they both carry a similar actus reus. However, manslaughter is often considered to be a little bit broader as compared to t6omurder cases. This is because manslaughter encompasses a variety of variations depending on how it may be charged. In this case scenario, the first distinction that will need to be evaluated is whether the offense committed was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. And then there is Gross Negligence manslaughter. Gross negligence manslaughter is explained as a failure to take care of something as required. Gross Negligence was legalized in 1932 following Lord Atkins ruling. In the law of negligence, every individual in the society owes duty of reasonable care to individuals who can reasonably be foreseen to be affected by the actions of other people. in instances where reasonable care has not been given, then duty has been breached and the individual who has failed to take action is regarded to be negligent.
Adequately by the prosecution side.
Gross Negligence
Gross negligence is usually regarded as a test of manslaughter. For one to be charged by gross negligence under manslaughter, three elements need to be proved. One is that the defendant needs to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. Second, there has to be proof that the duty of care was breached in one way or the other. Three the breach needs to account to actions associated with gross negligence. Sometimes the first requirement in regards to gross negligence is regarded as ambiguous as every person owe a duty of care to everyone especially in times of need. The test in regards to Gross negligence determines how the extent of the behavior of the defendant whether it is according to the required standards. Any case of Gross negligence is usually decided by the jury.
Dr. Menhenoit
Negligence in the court of law is often regarded as unintentional tort or unintentional manslaughter. Negligence is a duty of the plaintiff who in this case is the suing party, that the defendant who is the party being sued owes. Based on a breach or failure to exercise a duty of care as required. The plaintiff is obligated to provide proof that the defendant’s actions fell short of the reasonable standard. To prove a case on negligence, various requirements need to be present. The plaintiff needs to establish a breach in a duty of care. In this case, the plaintiff can argue in the line of the fact that Dr. Menhenoit was made aware of Andrews health condition but instead chose to ignore and without offering any immediate medication, pushed the surgery appointment till Monday. Another foundational requirement that should be assessed is the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case, Dr. Menhoit stands a chance to argue the case; there was no close relationship between the two. The simplest form is one’s obligation to the rest of the world. This means that Dr. Menhenoit needs not to act in a manner that would put everyone else at risk. Once a breach of a duty of care has been established, next is to determine the seriousness of the breach. In this case, the plaintiff stands minimal chances as the breach caused the death of a human being. The jury will be given the obligation to consider if the case of the defendant departed away from the proper standard of care delegated to the defendant, involved the death of a human being and if it is such, that is to be regarded criminal. Dr. Menhenoit can, therefore, be advised to plead guilty as most of the argument that may be presented by the plaintiff would prove negligence in terms of not attending to Andrew in any way. Instead of pushing the treatment date a little bit far despite the condition that Andrew was in at that particular moment.
Dr. Smith
When Andrews case started to worsen, Andrew was referred to Dr. Smith who opted to take Andrew into surgery, after Bethany refused, Andrew was given some medications by Dr. Smith and advice Bethany to look after Andrew band see if in two hours the temperature would have gone down. The Actus reus of Dr. Smith case of negligence man’s slaughter has two parts. One is a breach of duty. Even though both of them opted to plead guilty to the case a duty of care still needs to be established. This is to determine whether the harm caused to the diseased was foreseeable if there was any sufficient proximity between the two parties. Unlike in Civil law, the defendant who is Dr. Smith would not be able to except himself of a duty whereby the parties were acting in collaboration to perform the unlawful act. In this case, the defense team might argue in rejecting proximity between the two parties. Both Dr. Smith and Dr. Menhenoit made decisions regarding Andrews case differently. Dr. Smith gave out medicine that would help calm Andrews temperature down even though it did not. On the other side, the prosecution side might come at Dr. Smith in regards to proving a breach of a duty of care with claims of the doctor falling short of the required standard of care that a reasonable person who is Andrew would expect. According to the law, in instances where a skilled professional is present, the standard of care is to act in a practice that is adopted as proper as possible by a reasonable body of opinion of people who are skilled in that art. In this case, Dr. Smith offered surgery to the patient and after Bethany refused the doctor gave the patient medication that would calm down the temperature even though the medication did not work. The defendant stands a chance to plead the case, and there are chances of the defendant not being liable if the breach of duty care is not proven. Dr. Smith stands a reasonable chance of being favored by the jury as the arguments might not necessarily show a breach in duty of care, considering the doctor attempted to advise the best treatment and even offered medication to Andrew.
Self Defense
The law on self-defense was established to preserve law and order and defend the weak in society today. Self-defense is the right that an individual has to use force to save himself out of a situation. Although it as a crime that can typically be depicted to be a crime, it is not punished under those circumstances. Under common law, the criminal is only charged under the basis that shows the defendant’s force was necessary and for personal protection under reasonable grounds. Also, the force used needs to be proven that it was not excessively used. The argument in Philip and Dr. Menhenoit can only be argued in comparison of existing competing interests of the defender and the aggressor. The aggressor is the person who needs to be held accountable for the fight and not the defendant. This aspect puts Philip at a better position in the argument as the aggressor was Dr. Menhenoit. Philip can, therefore, be advised to plead the case as the party that is morally responsible for threatening the interest of the defender is the aggressor Dr. Menhenoit.
Furthermore, according to the law, a defendant who is acting in self-defense is acting right. Philip can be advised to plead the case on this basis. Philip was sitting down at Dr. Menhenoit office when Philip began to mourn the death of Andrew. Dr. Menhenoit came to comfort Philip, and Philip felt threatened and opted to act in defense. Furthermore, no evidence shows that Philip is the initial aggressor of the fight.
Conclusion
Every nation in the world has laws that govern and protect its citizens. Also, different departments have different laws in various fields. In this case, the laws that have been breached are in line with the field of healthcare. The two doctors, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Menhenoit have been charged with manslaughter with gross negligence pending the death of a 12-year-old boy Andrew. According to the law, Dr. Smith stands a better chance of not being considered guilty by the jury and the court by arguing the case in line with the requirements under the law on gross negligence. However, Dr. Menhenoit is observed to have breached a significant number of the requirements that have been presented and should, therefore, be advised to plead guilty. Philip on the other side stands a real chance of winning the case by pleading it in line with self-defense.