For compliance to be realized in a healthcare setting all the parties concerned must be able to play their roles thoroughly. This is what is missing in this case. The patient does not follow the medics advise to the letter (ACOG, 2016). It seems the patient had issues that were troubling him and the medics were not able to know them. This may be lack of funds to cater for the needed care during the pregnancy period. But also, there seems to be medical negligence as there is no record of reminders sent to the patient to attend the scheduled clinics.
The patient was more reluctant to attend the clinics. This may have contributed to development of conditions that the medics were not able to detect or that developed after the patient left the hospital. Who knows whether the patient adhered to the medics’ recommendations given when being discharged? If the patient has the courage to avoid seeking for the care, how is he or she going to take prescriptions in the absence of medical professionals? But, this should not limit the medics in establishing a good relationship with the patient (Kleinsinger, 2010). The medics should help the patient to realize noncompliance has cons to both the medics and the patient. Whereas, the patient heath may deteriorate due to noncompliance the medics may incur costs (vicarious liability) in lawsuits due to actions of the patient or medical errors that may emerge in the process.
The plaintiff perspective of seeing the medics as the root cause of her woes has no valid reasons. This is because there is no documented evidence of occurrence of the condition the plaintiff talks about (Kaplan, 2019). This cases favors the medics because they have detailed medical history of the patient. The legal aspect of the heath facility is top notch.
