CHCLEG001: Work Legally and Ethically - Jackson Vs Lithgow City Council - Ethical Dilemma Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Resources required for the Assessment Tasks: 

Participants must have access to the following resources: 
• Copies of the assessment instructions, assessment activities and or questions and the assessment checklist. 
• Access to the actual workplace or simulated workplace inclusive of organisational policies, procedures, forms and procedural documents 
• Access to resources normally used in the workplace (or simulated workplace.

General Instructions: 
 
Students are advised to refer to the Student Unit Guide, Assessments and Assessment Checklists.  
You are required to address all assessment tasks identified and participate in the Assessment Activities in accordance with the APC Student Code of Conduct and the relevant APC Policies and Procedures provided on course enrolment. This is an open book assessment and students are permitted to use the Student Learner Guide and additional resources available to support responses, however where relevant it is expected that references are listed or identified for any work that is not your own words.  
 
Work, Health and Safety: 

It would be impossible to list all the individual responsibilities associated with taking this assessment however the following principals must, as far as practicable, be followed.  
 

1. The workplace/simulated environment in which the student has chosen to participate in this assessment is to be free from any obvious dangers or potential physical risk.  
2. Students to refer to the Workstation Ergonomic Checklist to support WHS and the use of computers and electronic devices for learning and assessment purposes.  

Students can contact the APC Student Success team for more information, the contacts identified in the Student Unit Guide

Jackson Vs Lithgow City Council: (CHCLEG001)

Health and emergency service workers in the pre-hospital environment should also be aware of their actions that can directly affect the ability of police to gather and preserve evidence. 
 
While it is understood that the priority for health care workers in this setting is the health and wellbeing of the patient, workers should be mindful of the way in which they enter and work in the environment. If for instance, paramedics are called to a ‘concern for welfare’ case or are called to attend a scene by the police, they should be aware of the way their presence at the scene may disturb it. For example, if an intruder has accessed a premise unlawfully and is known to have walked across the middle of the room, and a paramedic, called to the scene, also proceeds across the middle of the room, evidence of this movement will be left as well. It is recommended that the rescue parties approaching a scene like this walk around the edge of the room rather than down its centre, thus leaving the evidence of the intruder’s pathway undisturbed. Where practicable, prehospital care teams should try to preserve as much evidence as possible. This includes items such as the gloves they wear. DNA evidence from the patient may also become embedded in an officer’s uniform. They should be mindful of evidence such as blood splatter and make all attempts to ensure that it remains untouched. Pre-hospital care teams may also take note of anything touched, moved, noticed or smelt at the scene. This may be called upon at a later date as evidence in court. 
 
In the case of Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2010] NSW CA 136, the court considered the question of whether the records made by ambulance officers attending the scene of a man who had allegedly fallen 1.5 meters were admissible as evidence of the fact which the man was attempting to prove in his case of negligence against the council. The records showed that the recording officer had written next to the patient history: ‘? Fall from 1.5 meters on to concrete’. The question mark appearing in the record suggested that the height and indeed the fall was not confirmed. Neither of the officers was called to give evidence and so the court was asked to consider if the documentation provided any admissible evidence that could contribute to the case. The court accepted that the documents added legitimate opinion (an inference) that from all that he or they could see there was a question whether the plaintiff has fallen off the wall. The inference (and thus the opinion) was based upon what the ambulance officers perceived. This case demonstrates the importance of taking and recording accurate notes of events and findings at the scene as they can later be used and relied upon in court for a variety of reasons   

Case Study 1: (CHCLEG001)

Research Task :
You are required to conduct some evidenced-based research related to the above case (Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2010] NSW CA 136) and discuss the related points that this case makes, in consideration of your learning and the legal and ethical issues of the same.
 
You must identify your research sources in a reference list at the end of your work 
 
You should consider, at a minimum, the following: 
1. Legal issues including the relevant, current legislation including inference and evidence gathering for potential court cases 
2. Codes of Conduct and Standards for Clinical Practice 
3. National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) 
4. WorkSafe Australia 
5. Documentation and record-keeping requirements 

Case Study 2: Ethical Dilemma: (CHCLEG001)
 
Ethical Research Task  
 
Consider the following: 
 
You are called to an incident involving two people who have been involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) where there is a high probability that body fluids have been spilt and have been transferred between patients.  
 
One of the patients has identified that they are HIV positive and has strongly asked you not to divulge this information to the other patient involved in the MVA. 
 
Assessment Task Response:   
For this activity and assessment task response, you are required to address the following questions. You can conduct additional evidence-based research and must provide your sources in a reference list at the end of your work. Every attempt must be made to answer where relevant, in your own words.  
 
Questions for Response:
 
You should consider, at a minimum, the following:
 
6. Where do you stand legally, ethically and morally in this situation? 

7. What are the current, relevant legislation and the principles of ethical decision making related to this case study?   

8. Discuss the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Charter of Human Rights in relation to the privacy and confidentiality issues. 

9. Discuss why or why you would not choose to disclose this information to any other party involved and justify your response. 

10. Discuss your ‘duty of care’ in this situation related to the following:  
 
• Legal - What is required legally? 
• Professional/ethical – What is the right thing to do as a paramedical professional and in consideration of the patient’s human rights and ethically? 
• Organisational - What does the health care industry say you should do? 
• Community – What does the community members expect us to do? 
• Personal - What do our own beliefs and values suggest you do? 

This CHCLEG001: Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.