Read the background articles (below) on controversial Mississippi Medical Examiner, Steven Hayne. Should the government do more to regulate the credentials and behavior of health practitioners working with the dead? Why or why not? What are the underlying philosophical issues in this particular situation. Defend your position.
Articles:
From Reason Online -
One
Two
Three
From Slate -
One
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
From my own research into the path of becoming a medical examiner, I have learned that it is indeed a long and rigorous process. It is somewhat appalling that somebody who is widely known to be unqualified is performing such an important role in the Mississippi justice system, despite the attempts at reform of properly trained individuals such as Dr. Ward and others. The government should absolutely have regulations and safeguards in place to avoid gross conflicts of interest. These conflicts can be exemplified by the attitude displayed in Mississippi to provide Steven Hayne with bodies to increase the likelihood of a favorable finding for the prosecutor especially when his work has been refuted by numerous credible professionals.
Every effort should be made by the governing bodies to ensure strict guidelines are followed and high standards maintained when dealing with the dead especially in instances when a criminal investigation is under way. The job of a medical examiner is to take the evidence provided and find the most probably scientific explanation for the death of the person. The medical examiner at the very least owes the best efforts to be made for the family of the deceased. A poorly conducted autopsy not only disregards the rules of common respect when dealing with a cadaver, but rendering a haphazard diagnosis can have a lasting effect on the grieving process of loved ones as well as the potential for false imprisonment of others as outlined in the articles.
Bottom line is that all medical professionals are bound by a duty to treat all patients with the utmost respect and should always perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, from gestation to the end of life and beyond.
Just because a person is dead that does not mean that they do not have rights. When a person dies and you lie about how the person dies that’s immoral. It is not fair that he made evidence seem like it meant something else so that in turn he could make more money. People bring bodies to Hayne so that the evidence is in their favor so therefore Hayne gets more work and in turn makes more money. That is breaking the law I believe its called TAMPERING with evidence he should not be reinstated because he will go back to doing the same things. There should be more monitoring in who they hire. With any medical professional they should be certified and screened before they are able to make accurate medical decisions and death is part of those decisions because there is still a person that needs to know what happened to the deceased. Expert witness is someone who is fluent and skilled in what they do should be and can be licensed and certified but un top of that they have to be ethically sound because evidence tells the story not the assumption of a cops opinion on the story. And if you do not have those qualities then you are not qualified for the job and you need to have some medical school.
Post a Comment