DELFIN, MICHAELA SHENNA B.

CASE STUDY BSN-2C

“I'm so glad he waited.”

● Yes, it is, given the current circumstance of the lady it may influence her

wellbeing indeed more in the event that the truth was said to her. “White lies”

may not be completely moral, they are not entirely against the law unless they

cause hurt to the understanding or others. It is the lies that doctors tell to veil

their mistakes, cover up medical errors, or disguise fraud that is illegal within

the medical field

Tuskegee Study

1. Role Fidelity. As defined it is the faithful practice of the duties contained in a

particular field, profession, and the like. In this case, the Tuskegee Study was

conducted on unwilling victims of the African nation. As stated in the article,

due to financial reverses experienced by the US Public Health Service, they

then endeavored to change the main purpose of their demonstration project,

which was to help alleviate or cure the plight that was syphilis. However,

under the guise of a medical mission, it soon became a place of

experimentation, where those who applied, rather than being remedied were

actually observed. These are acts that may be considered as medical

malpractice or negligence, in which case both are punishable under the law.

The USPHS was not true to its intended objective. Its role being that of a

health care provider was not faithfully complied with, thus, not being in the

performance of their lawful duties and functions.

 In that regard the subjects of this study should be compensated for their

hardships, the giving of hot food and other needs also did not mitigate the

crime as it was used as a means to lure them in. Furthermore, the family

members of those subjects who have died should also give aid as they were

given false hope thinking their loved ones would be cured. Premises

considered all subjects and their heirs should be awarded damages for having

undergone a study without their consent, as it is in violation of a person's

rights as well as public health, policy, and the doctrine of informed consent.

2. Nurse Eunice Rivers to some degree is as much but not entirely responsible

for the events that transpired. From the time she helped with the

demonstration project, as a registered nurse, she should have known of the

change in the role played by USPHS. Thus, her liability, in this case, cannot

be disregarded. She is an accessory to this crime, as she knew full well what

was happening and did not inform anyone, this act in itself must have caused

a great deal of deaths already.

Poor Piggy Case

1. Yes. Piggy has a right to his glasses because everyone has the right to the

protection of their property. The glasses in this case are the property of Piggy,

hence Piggy has the right to claim the glasses.

2. Yes. Piggy has the right to his life which is recognized in the whole world by

each nation. In international law, the right to life is afforded protection. Hence
 Piggy has a right to his life. The ownership of his glasses is immaterial in the

determination of his right to his own life.

3. Such rights come from the laws which are recognized domestically as well as

at the international levels. In the Philippine setting the right to life, liberty and

property are found under Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

4. No. Piggy's weakness with respect to enforcing his rights did not and will not

decrease his legitimate claim because all persons, juridical or natural, has the

right to the protection of their property, and having such right gives them the

power to protect it with whatever means is necessary.