Actual Touching: A Case Study

Words: 2434
Pages: 10

A useful elaboration has been provided by Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart (2009) that contain five general principles that can be applicable to the concept of Ethics. Ethics is widely related to the wellbeing and thriving of man and the making and preservation of a peaceful society for the advantage of everyone. It is more concerned with what one should do, rather than what one should do. It utilises a methodical approach to outline what ought or not ought to be done, in either an action or Process. It symbolises a universal concept, wherein it is applicable to all individuals, all the development of moral concepts, attitudes, and action plans should pertain to all individuals equally. It has a superseding importance, wherein The Law, Politics, and …show more content…
Not only is that respectful, but it is also a legal necessity too (Forrester et al., 2011). Touching an individual without obtaining their consent before doing so could make one liable for assault or battery charge (Forrester et al., 2011). Assault can be defined as an intentional tort in which the fear of a looming, uninvited physical contact is created in the mind of another individual. Actual touching may not be involved in the threat, and nor could it be overtly conveyed. An unlawful tangible harm or offensive touching of a person is referred to a Battery. An important consideration regarding a battery charge is that it does not require the evidence of actual harm or injury (Cherry & Jacob, ). All Healthcare professionals that carry out a therapeutic procedure or treatment without consent are liable to be charged with battery (Forrester & Griffith, 2011). Any cognizant adult individual has a right to be free at their will. Interference in the freedom of movement of an individual by a health worker could amount to false imprisonment (Forrester & Griffith, 2011, p 152). According to Laufer (1992), false imprisonment refers to an illegal, deliberate and absolute application of restraint on a person, thus restricting their freedom of movement. There must be a total limitation of the freedom of movement and physical contact may be absent. There must be no exit for the patient whatsoever. An important consideration to be made here is that the existence of an exit being unknown to the client or unreasonable for the client to attempt to utilise also constitutes to a restraint on the freedom of movement (Forrester et al., 2011, p.153). Possible civil procedures in assault and battery could be undertaken against those health professionals as a result of their failure to obtain a valid consent of their patients before establishing contact