Good example of other article review

Tort Law

Tort Law Article Review
The article was written by Becca Aaronson and was published at the New York Times in January 2013. It was about the case of Connie Spears who later suffered from legs amputation after an initial alleged misdiagnosis of her medical condition at Christus Santa Rosa hospital. The concept of this article is about the Tort Law’s provision when it comes to being a state law that would help the people within the state of Texas. It aims to show how the Tort Law’s provision could affect an individual’s case proceedings right after it was filed before the court of Texas.
Based on the events in the articles, there are few points that were portrayed in relation to the plaintiff’s situation after the result of alleged misdiagnosis of the mentioned hospital. Connie was diagnosed far less serious from her actual medical situation, despite her telling the medical staff about her blood clot history. One of the key points of the article is that tort law may not be as helpful when it comes to protecting the Texas citizen in terms of being a victim of medical malpractice such as Connie’s case. It was clearly portrayed in the article that there was something wrong in terms of the law’s provision against Connie’s current situation. Another key point in this article is that the point in which Connie, aside from the fact that she was a victim, the court was forced to make her pay thousands of dollars due to inability to produce evidence of misdiagnosis through another professional. She was not able to find a professional who will cross-exam her condition before and after the alleged misdiagnosis. Looking at her situation in terms of financial, medical, even emotional, the event could have affected her so much. Relatively, this could have been some of the many possible reasons why she was not able to find a teaching or practicing physician with the same specialty that could stand as a witness regarding the alleged medical malpractice.
Furthermore, defendants were the ones who benefited from the law suit, instead of them making pay for what they have allegedly done to Connie’s medical condition due to misdiagnosis that led to amputation of her two legs.
As a citizen of this country, it is my right to have a partial treatment when it comes to the rule of law. This such event could happen to anyone in the future. Hence, another victim of misdiagnosis or medical malpractice might suffer due to negligence of duty. It relates to me, as i personally do not want such event to happen to me nor to my family. Additionally, as a citizen of this country, i am entitled to a protection against harmful actions of any individuals under the rule of laws. Professionally, this event set as an example of how healthcare professionals must act in accordance with professionalism as well as the knowledge that we earned in practicing our medical healthcare profession. Also, we have to be aware that every profession within the healthcare industry has its corresponding responsibility in order to provide the needed service based on our professions that we took an oath for.
The two critical questions in relation to this article is about the effectiveness of the law when it comes to protecting the citizen from such similar event that could happen in the future.

Question 1: Is the Tort Law provides adequate rulings when it comes balancing the benefit between the plaintiff and the defendant?

Question 2: Is it constitutional to have the plaintiff pay thousands of dollars for the defendants’ legal fees despite her inability to seek help from another professional for the purpose of further examination?

References

Aaronson, B. (2013, January 24). Even With Counsel, Texas Amputee Is Hindered by State Tort Laws – NYTimes. com. Retrieved May 22, 2014, from http://www. nytimes. com/2013/01/25/us/even-with-counsel-texas-amputee-is-hindered-by-state-tort-laws. html? _r= 0