Human right act 1998 Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Human right act 1998 - Case Study Example This is a violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Secondly, this is in violation of Article 2, as Heather and Len are not being given medical attention without their lives being at risk, which they feel will happen if they are apart. Finally, this could be viewed as a violation of Article 3, as they are being degraded by not being able to live their lives in the manner that they wish. Married couples should be permitted to live together and these circumstances are preventing this from occurring. Heather and Len should receive immediate legal help in order to address this situation. They must be taught exactly what their rights are because people tend to take advantage of those who are not sure exactly what their own rights are. Heather and Len have every right to pursue the life that they desire and should use the Human Rights Act to do so. Figuring out action that can be taken against Helpful Borough Council is a complicated process, especially given the age and the situation of Len and Heather. In previous times, the Human Rights Act did not expand into private companies that provide a public service, which meant that retirement homes were essentially exempt from these laws. That has changed recently, however, as the elderly have been given more rights with which to fight back. The best thing that Len and Heather can do is have a lawyer come up with a list of the human rights violations that they are experiencing and present them to the Helpful Borough Council. If this does not get the desired reaction from them, then they should speak to Social Services and explain their situation. No matter what, Len and Heather will need outside help in order to alleviate this problem, as they must be made aware of the rights that they have, as well as what they can do to protect these rights. There are three important sections of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights that must be considered in this particular case. The first comes under Article 8, which protects one's privacy and family life. This means that those who require long term care must be allowed to keep their family lives intact. Heather and Len have obviously had a family life together for a long period of time and, therefore, their right to this life is protected. The problem is that this legislation is not applied as much as it probably should be, meaning that these rights are frequently violated. Heather and Len should be advised to pursue these rights that have been given to them under the Human Rights Act and to take the matter to court if need be. The fact of the matter is that many elderly people do not know their rights and will simply go along with whatever the carer wants to do with them. This will often lead to situations like with Len and Heather, as Caring Home does not have the right to change their family living arrangement. It is a common practice for Social Services to tell people like Len and Heather that there is nothing they can do and that since they need full time care, that they should take whatever care that they are given. This attitude clearly violated Article 8 and Len and Heather definitely have every right to pursue a living environment that meets their needs. Another section of the Human Rights Act that could be being violated is Article 2, which says that Heather and Len have the right to medical treatment without their lives being put at

A case study on a patient with Shingles Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

A case study on a patient with Shingles - Essay Example This patient has been selected because prevention and control of infection is very critical in crowded institutions like prison, immigrant camps, hostels and oldage homes. Inappropriate control of infection can lead to an outbreak and shut down of the organization. The name of the patient will not be disclosed for purpose of confidentiality. The case is presented after obtaining consent for presentation and discussion. 60 year old Mr. X was imprisoned 2 months ago. One one morning, he was noticed to have fever and malaise. Within 48 hours, Mr. X developed vesicular eruptions over the thoracic region. The physician in-charge was contacted and on examination, it was confirmed that the signs and symptoms of Mr. X relate to shingles. On inquiry, Mr. X revealed that he never contracted chicken pox in childhood and he was never vaccinated for chicken pox or shingles. There was no other case identified at the time. The physician in coordination with Infection Control and Prevention Board drew some guidelines for the management of the disease and also prevention of spread of the disease to other inmates of prison and staff. Shingles or Herpes Zoster, a viral infection caused by the virus varicella -zoster virus or VZV is a common problem in older adults like Mr. X (Cadogan, 2010). In childhood, this virus causes chicken pox. Following a clinical or sub-clinical attack in childhood, the virus remains dormant in the spinal ganglia. In adulthood, this virus can cause Shingles, which is deadlier than chicken pox. Shingles is a syndrome and is characterized by vesicular rash that is painful and unilateral. Most of the times, the distribution is dermatomal. The rash of Shingles first appears as patchy erythema with or without induration, followed by development of grouped herpetiform vesicles over the ertythematous base. However, in immunosuppression, the infection can spread and cause severe systemic illness involving of multiple organs and multiple