Professional Health Law for Natural and Juristic Persons. Essay

Professional Health Law for Natural and Juristic Persons
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
January 29, 2020
Natural and Juristic Persons
The health law has several branches. One of these is professional health law which governs the practice of health care providers. These health care providers can be divided into “natural persons” or “juristic persons.” Natural persons describe health care providers who have guaranteed legitimate rights following inevitably after birth and those who are genetically determined as humans by nature. These privileges expand as the child grows into adulthood. The majority of societies prioritize the necessities of natural persons. Hence, favoring their well-being above all the others (Studley & Bleisch, 2018). On the other hand, juristic or juridical persons refer to non-human lawful units. These persons are units by which humanity has entrusted the decision-making process. These include organizations, whether government or non-government (NGO) or corporations which are a conglomeration of natural persons. Furthermore, juridical persons deliberate the privileges and responsibilities of the members of the society. Their privileges are different from those of the natural persons that are involved in their system (Studley & Bleisch, 2018)
Generally, natural persons are entitled privileges which are far more superior than those granted to juridical persons. Therefore, legal rights are prioritized in the former’s group (Studley & Bleisch, 2018).
Application of the Professional Health Law Based on Canadian Law
Previously, the Canadian Government failed to recognize damages that are non-physically related. The Canadian Law deemed these non-physical injuries as minor or unimportant damages that do not need compensation from the defendant. These non-physical injuries involve mental health damages such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorders, and others CITATION Mennd \l 1033 (Mental Health Commission of Canada, n.d.).
However, the development of the Canadian Tort Law paved the way for the plaintiffs to claim for the damages made by the defendant due to medical negligence. This covers four major areas namely the defendant’s duty to fulfil the care necessitated by the plaintiff; contravention of the plaintiff’s duty; the legal damages that resulted from the negligence; and a legal and factual relation (Douglas et al, 1999). The Canadian Tort Law proved the deviation from historical practices as evidenced by Mustapha v. Culligan in 2008 and Saadati v Moorhead in 2017 (Trebilcock, 1987).
Saadati v Moorhead (2017)
Facts
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) due to the plaintiff’s claims of incurring mental injuries after being involved in a motor vehicular accident after his tractor-truck collided with the vehicle of the defendant. The plaintiff’s vehicle took several damages. However, the patient, at first, according to his claims, did not incur any damage. The appellant has also suffered from five motor vehicular accidents from 2003 to 2009. The plaintiff appealed for damages for the first three accidents for non-fiscal damages and income loss, before the plaintiff suffered the latter two accidents (Freckelton & Popa, 2018).
The trial judge ruled that the plaintiff suffered psychological damages without physical damages. These mental health issues include a change in personality and cognitive functioning as affirmed by the plaintiff’s family and friends. The British Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff cannot prove this claim medically through a licensed psychiatrist. Thus, the illness claimed by the plaintiff had been considered as a hoax due to the lack of evidence from an expert psychiatrist. The decision of the Court of Appeals was overthrown by the Supreme Court of Canada after the plaintiff’s appeals to the SCC by reinstating the trial judge’s decision. The SCC ruled that the plaintiff’s claims for mental injuries incurred from the accident should be treated equally as that of physical injuries. The Court reiterated that the law does not necessitate the presence of recognizable psychiatric illness to consider Mr. Saadati’s case. Furthermore, the Court added that the endeavors were biased due to the disputable discernments of mental illness in general, such that, the subjective nature of the evaluation of mental state and capacity is exaggerated and that the law should not require for compensation for these trivial matters. However, the Court ruled that the society’s stigma on people with mental health issues often hinders the latter’s full functioning in the community, and that, the recovery from both physical and mental damages do not necessitate the need to appreciate a recognizable physical or psychiatric illness (Freckelton & Popa, 2018).
Analysis
The ruling of the trial court was based on a premise neither reasoned nor contended. Additionally, the ruling was based on an argument that did not exist. Thus, deviating from the facts o...