Analyzing the Case of Charlene Murphey’s Tragic Death: Ethical and Legal Considerations

QUESTION

On December 27th, 2017, Charlene Murphey passed as a result of nurse inadvertently injectingthe patient with a deadly dose of a powerful paralyzing medication. RaDonda Vaught was thenurse working that night at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the doctor directed her to givethe patient a sedative. Vaught reportedly admit to the hospital staff in Nashville that she wasresponsible for the medication error. She also claimed that the fatal drug mix up was an errorfrom the technical problems and faulty procedures of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center

The question is

1. Ethically speaking, should Ms. Vaught have lost her nursing license? Why or why not?
2. Who was primarily responsible for Ms. Vaught’s error—Ms. Vaught, the hospital (Vanderbilt University Medical Center), or both? Why?
3. Should Ms. Vaught have been criminally charged with negligent homicide or neglect? Why or why not?

ANSWER

Analyzing the Case of Charlene Murphey’s Tragic Death: Ethical and Legal Considerations

Introduction

The unfortunate incident that resulted in the death of Charlene Murphey raises several ethical and legal questions. As we examine the case of RaDonda Vaught, the nurse involved in the medication error, and the role of Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), it is important to consider the ethical aspects surrounding the incident, the responsibility for the error, and the potential criminal charges against Ms. Vaught.

Ethical Considerations

Nurse’s Professional Responsibility: As a nurse, RaDonda Vaught had a professional duty to ensure patient safety and provide appropriate care. The error in administering the wrong medication violated these responsibilities and breached the trust placed in her by the patient and her profession.

Accountability for Actions: Ms. Vaught admitted her mistake and took responsibility for the medication error. Her willingness to acknowledge the error demonstrates a level of accountability, which is a crucial aspect of ethical decision-making.

Impact of Technical Problems and Faulty Procedures: While technical problems and faulty procedures might have contributed to the error, ultimately, the responsibility lies with the healthcare professional administering the medication. Nurses are expected to exercise caution, verify prescriptions, and follow protocols, regardless of any underlying systemic issues.

Should Ms. Vaught Have Lost Her Nursing License

Determining whether Ms. Vaught should lose her nursing license requires careful consideration of the severity of the error, her level of responsibility, and her overall professional conduct.

Severity of the Error: The error resulting in the death of a patient is undoubtedly a grave and tragic outcome. However, disciplinary actions should consider whether this incident was an isolated case or part of a pattern of negligence. Evaluating Ms. Vaught’s prior record and professional conduct would provide a comprehensive understanding of her competence and potential for rehabilitation.

Responsibility and Rehabilitation: Ms. Vaught admitted her error, suggesting remorse and a willingness to learn from the experience. Ethically, the focus should also be on ensuring she receives appropriate education, training, and supervision to prevent such errors in the future. Disciplinary actions should aim to protect patient safety while allowing professionals to rectify their mistakes and grow from them.

Primary Responsibility for the Error

Determining the primary responsibility for the medication error involves assessing the role of both RaDonda Vaught and Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC).

Ms. Vaught’s Responsibility: As the administering nurse, Ms. Vaught holds a significant level of responsibility for ensuring accurate medication administration. Despite any underlying systemic issues, nurses are expected to exercise critical judgment and follow established protocols.

VUMC’s Responsibility: VUMC, as an institution, shares a responsibility for ensuring patient safety and maintaining proper procedures. The hospital should provide a supportive environment that emphasizes a culture of safety and provides clear protocols, training, and adequate resources. Any systemic issues within VUMC that contributed to the error should be addressed.

Criminal Charges against Ms. Vaught

Determining whether Ms. Vaught should face criminal charges requires consideration of the legal standards for negligence or neglect resulting in death.

Negligent Homicide: Negligent homicide charges typically require proof of a substantial deviation from the standard of care that directly causes a person’s death. While the error was tragic, determining criminal negligence would require assessing Ms. Vaught’s actions within the legal framework of negligence laws in the jurisdiction.

Neglect: Similarly, the decision to charge Ms. Vaught with neglect would require a careful examination of the legal definition of neglect and whether her actions meet the criteria necessary for criminal charges.

Conclusion

In the case of Charlene Murphey’s tragic death due to a medication error, ethical considerations suggest that RaDonda Vaught should be held accountable for her actions. Disciplinary measures, including potential loss of her nursing license, should focus on rehabilitation, education, and ensuring patient safety. Both Ms. Vaught and Vanderbilt University Medical Center share responsibility for the error, with VUMC needing to address any systemic issues contributing to medication errors. Regarding criminal charges, legal standards for negligence or neglect should be carefully evaluated to determine the appropriateness of pursuing such charges. Ultimately, the focus should be on preventing future errors and promoting patient safety within the healthcare system.