Question

Discussion Question #1: A patient in her mid-twenties saw an ophthalmologist for a routine eye exam. Due to her young age, a glaucoma est was not performed. She later was diagnosed with glaucoma and sued the ophthalmology group, alleging negligence in failing to preform a glaucoma test. The defense argued hat the standard of care was to not administer the test to patients younger than 40 because the instance of glaucoma at younger ages was rare. Which of the following statements do you think best describes the applicable standard of care in this case? Explain your choice. 1. The defense should prevail because the reasonable, customary, and prudent course of action followed by practitioners in the same or similar circumstances would be the same. 2. The plaintiff should prevail because all patients should be protected against glaucoma, regardless of age.

Answer 1

Answer ; 2. The plaintiff should prevail because all patients should be protected against glaucoma, regardless of age.

Rationale ; In this case, the patient had visited the ophthalmologist during her mid twenty, but the doctor did't made a glaucoma test because her age. Although mostly this kind of disease occurs in the older adult client there are some type of condition which occurs in the younger adult also, even more it is occur in children and newborn. There are various types in this condition and hence needs to be rule out and get diagnosed in the earlier life itself.

Therefore this scenario would not be considered as reasonable or prudent course of action followed by the practitioner and hence the plaintiff can make a appropriate statement at this situation.