Ethical Components Of The Malpractice Case DQ
This milestone is the ethics half of a malpractice project. The counterfactual at the end is the sharpest test: the fact you change has to be one that actually carried the liability.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 22, 2026
Four legal elements, then the ethics the case exposes
Get the legal skeleton right first, because the ethics analysis hangs on it. Negligence requires duty, breach, causation and damages, and the standard of care is what a reasonably prudent practitioner in the same specialty would have done in the same circumstances, established at trial by expert testimony rather than by the court's own view. Breach is the departure from that standard, and causation is the element that most often decides real cases, because a plaintiff must show the breach caused the harm rather than merely preceding it. Say which element the court actually turned on, since a case decided on causation is a different story from one decided on the standard itself, and a milestone that treats all four as equally contested has not read the decision closely. Name the element in a sentence and the rest of the milestone has somewhere to point back to.
Then move to the ethics, which is what this milestone is actually for. The ethics issue is rarely identical to the legal failure: a physician can breach the standard of care through a technical error with no ethical dimension, while the ethically interesting material is usually informed consent, disclosure after the event, communication, or a conflict between what the patient wanted and what was done. Name the issue precisely, then choose a theory that would have changed the behaviour rather than merely describing it, and say why that theory suits this problem. The shared decision-making model then has to be applied rather than named, so walk through its steps: how the choice would have been framed, what options and risks would have been presented, how values would have been elicited, and where the decision would have landed. Finally, the counterfactual tests whether you understood the causation analysis, so change the fact that carried liability and say which element now fails.
Likely learning objectives
- State the elements of negligence and how the standard of care is established.
- Identify which element the court's decision actually turned on.
- Distinguish the ethics issue from the legal failure.
- Apply a shared decision-making model to a case rather than naming it.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Overview: The final case study for this course will require you to analyze a court decision in which a physician was found liable for medical malpractice. You will focus on facts pertaining to the medical standard of care, breach of care, and causation, and you will explain how they were applied to law. You will then use the facts of the case to identify an ethics issue and determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient. Next, you will apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model to describe how the ethics issue could be resolved. You will also include a discussion about possible violations of the code of ethics in your given field. Lastly, you will augment or vary the facts of the case to create a hypothetical scenario that changes the outcome so that the physician is no longer liable for medical malpractice. Prompt: In this project, you will analyze a court case involving medical malpractice. For this milestone, you will use the facts from the original case to identify an ethics issue, determine an ethical theory that would help provide a safe and quality healthcare experience for the patient, and apply a clinician–patient shared decision-making model. III. Ethical Component: In this section, you will evaluate the case to identify the specific ethical issues and determine ethical theories and shared decision- making models that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience. Then, you will propose and defend ethical guidelines for healthcare providers to follow in order to avoid future incidents. A. Describe the ethical issues that led to the malpractice case and explain why the issues are credited with causing the incident. Support your response with research and relevant examples from the case. B. Describe an ethical theory that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient. Support your response with research and relevant examples from the case. C. Select a physician–patient shared decision-making model and explain how it would provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient D. Propose ethical guidelines that would have helped prevent the incident and would help the organization prevent future incidents. E. Defend how your proposed ethical guidelines will hold healthcare providers accountable to themselves, their profession, their patients, and the Ethical Components Of The Malpractice Case DQ public. Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and at least three sources cited in APA format. Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value Ethical Component: Ethical Issues Describes the ethical issues that led to the malpractice case and explains why the issues are credited with causing the incident, and supports with research and relevant examples Describe the ethical issues that led to the malpractice case and explains why the issues are credited with causing the incident, but description lacks details or does not support with research and relevant examples Does not describe the ethical issues that led to the malpractice case and does not explain why the issues are credited with causing the incident 18 Ethical Component: Ethical Theory Describes an ethical theory that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient, and supports with research and relevant examples from the case Describes an ethical theory that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient, but description lacks detail, is illogical, or does not support with research or relevant examples Does not describe an ethical theory that would help resolve the issue and provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient 18 Ethical Component: Shared Decision- Making Model Selects a physician–patient shared decision-making model and explains how it would provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient Selects a physician–patient shared decision-making model and explains how it would provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient, but explanation lacks detail Does not select a physician– patient shared decision-making model and does not explain how it would provide a safe, quality healthcare experience for the patient 18 Ethical Component: Ethical Guidelines Proposes ethical guidelines that would have helped prevent the incident and would help the organization prevent future incidents Proposes ethical guidelines that would have helped prevent the incident and would help the organization prevent future incidents, but proposal is cursory Does not propose ethical guidelines that would have helped prevent current and future incidents 18 Ethical Component: Defend Defends how the proposed ethical guidelines will hold healthcare providers accountable to themselves, their profession, their patients, and the public Defends how the proposed ethical guidelines will hold healthcare providers accountable to themselves, their profession, their patients, and the public, but defense lacks detail or is illogical Does not defend how the proposed ethical guidelines will hold healthcare providers accountable to themselves, their profession, their patients, and the public 18 Articulation of Response Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to cit Ethical Components Of The Malpractice Case DQ
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01The standard of care, breach and causation as applied in the decision.
- 02The element the case turned on.
- 03An ethics issue distinct from the legal breach.
- 04An ethical theory chosen with a reason it fits this problem.
- 05A shared decision-making model applied step by step to the case.
- 06Possible code of ethics violations in your field.
- 07A hypothetical variation removing liability, with the element identified.
Standard, breach, causation, then theory and the rewrite
The standard and how it was set
State the standard of care and how expert testimony established it.
What the assessor is likely looking for
The standard tied to a specialty and circumstances rather than to reasonableness.
Breach and causation
Show the departure and the causal link the court accepted.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Causation treated as a separate hurdle from breach.
The ethics issue in the facts
Identify an ethical problem the legal analysis does not capture.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An issue such as consent or disclosure rather than the technical error.
A theory and a decision model applied
Choose a theory and walk a shared decision-making model through the case.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Model steps applied to the case's own facts.
The variation that removes liability
Change the fact that carried liability and name the element that now fails.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A change targeting the element the court relied on.
Where malpractice elements and shared decision-making are documented
Recommended databases
- NCBI Bookshelf
- PubMed Central
- Cornell LII
- University Library
Search sequence
- 1.Read the elements of negligence before analysing the decision.
- 2.Find a shared decision-making model with named steps you can apply.
- 3.Look up your field's code of ethics provisions on consent and disclosure.
- 4.Check what expert testimony is required to establish a standard of care.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Medical Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2026
Medical ethics, for choosing and justifying the ethical theory.
Informed Consent
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Informed consent, for the ethics issue most malpractice facts expose.
Medical Error Prevention and Root Cause Analysis
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Error prevention and root cause analysis, for the systems view of the breach.
2025 Code of Ethics for Nurses
American Nurses Association · 2025
A professional code, for the violations discussion.
Culture of Safety
AHRQ Patient Safety Network · 2024
Safety culture, for disclosure after an adverse event.
Before you submit this milestone
Common mistakes
- Treating the ethics issue as identical to the negligence finding.
- Naming a shared decision-making model without walking through its steps.
- Changing an incidental fact in the counterfactual so liability is unaffected.
- Describing the standard of care as what a reasonable person would do rather than a practitioner.
- Ignoring causation, which is usually the element that decides the case.
Submission checklist
- Have you said which element the court turned on?
- Is the ethics issue distinct from the legal breach?
- Does the theory choice come with a reason it fits?
- Is the decision-making model applied step by step?
- Does your counterfactual remove a named element?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.