Of Tomcick V. Ohio Dep T Of Rehabilitation And Correction

The following case study of “Tomcick v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction” speaks of a woman, Tomcik, an inmate at a correctional institution. Tomcik noticed while institutionalized a small lump in her right breast. Tomcik efforts to seek medical care took many months and in the meantime her lump continued to grow. Each time she was treated the treatments were cursory. Tomcik was originally evaluated briefly on May 26, 1989 by a Dr. Evans. Tomcik noticed the very next day that she had a lump on her right breast. From May 27th she would continually place her name on the clinic list along with the reason and she was not examined until June 21st where the nurse noted that there was indeed a moderate large mass. June 28th she was examined again and mistakenly the doctor wrote in her chart that she had a mass on the wrist. On September 28th she was transferred to a

The medical staff’s ethical principals were non-existent. Unfortunately since Tomcik was in an institution therefore she had no means of autonomy. She was not able to effectively make her own decisions regarding how she was to be treated. The healthcare staff did not use moral judgment throughout her care. She was ignored and not given the proper care that was needed. She was not examined properly, she had been ignored by the clinic, the doctors and staff were erroneous, and there were too many delays in her treatment. These problems caused the effect of her needing to have a full mastectomy when if she would’ve received proper treatment her risk of a mastectomy could have been avoided. At the initial physical evaluation that had apparently included a breast exam, the doctor should have noted a lump, and in addition the evaluation was very cursory. The delay in getting on the nurses list had caused the pea sized lump to grow to the size of a golf ball, between the cursory exams and the delays the actions therefore caused the