Complete the Problem beginning on page 463 of your text titled “Problem: Economic Credentialing” in a one to two page paper. Submit the completed assignment to your instructor. See page 369 for a general description of Marcus Welby Hospital.
You are the lawyer for Marcus Welby Community Hospital. The administrator approaches you about how to amend the bylaws so that the hospital can get rid of doctors who are costing the hospital too much money under Medicare and HMO insurance. The administrator is concerned about which removal actions can be defended in court and which bylaw amendments are politically feasible with physicians. Advise the administrator on each of these options:
• Amend the Hospital Bylaws to give the hospital board authority to remove doctors from the medical staff for any reason, regardless of the medical staff’s own recommendations, as long as the medical staff is first consulted.
• Amend the Medical Staff Bylaws to declare that an additional criterion for medical staff membership is to practice an efficient style of medicine that avoids wasting medical resources or providing unnecessary care.
• Forget about amending any bylaws. Instead, go after physicians who are economic losers based on their general medical competence and their unwillingness to be cooperative.
• Keep but supplant the entire medical staff structure by limiting who can practice in each department through one-year renewable contracts with the 200 best doctors out of the present 300.
showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, >GET ANSWER