Leslie Gonzalez (0255117)
CHPM 4773 Ethics & Boundaries
Week Three Assignment
1. Dr. Gallagher’s actions throughout her career showed interactions between the
definitions of ethics, morals, and law. Ethically, as a chiropractor, Dr. Gallgher had no
right to tell her patient to stop taking her epilepsy medication. She could have stated her
opinion, but a chiropractor does not have the right to prescribe or administer drugs.
Ethically, she is violating the code of the chiropractic profession. Dr. Gallagher should
have advised the patient to speak with her medical professionals about her concerns to
make the appropriate and safe decision concerning medication. Also, Dr. Gallagher’s
approach to treatment through cranial therapy was not covered by Medicaid and was
outside the scope of practice of a chiropractor. Because of this Dr. Galllagher was also
disobeying the laws set forth in the chiropractic profession and medical law. Morally, Dr.
Gallgher felt as if she was doing no wrong but doing what was, in her opinion, in the best
interest of the patient. Her strong philosophical beliefs concerning nerve interference,
and through the correction of meninges, people can live optimal functioning lives,
seemed to lead her to make unethical decisions.
2. Dr. Gallagher’s actions did not follow the scope of Practice Act in the state of
Pennsylvania. The act specifically talks about providing care through, “the examination
preparatory to the adjustment or manipulation of such misaligned or displaced vertebrae and
other articulations; the adjustment or manipulation of such misaligned or displaced vertebrae and
other articulations; the furnishing of necessary patient care for the restoration and maintenance of
health; and the use of Board approved scientific instruments of analysis, including X-ray”
(Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Board). The technique of cranial therapy Dr. Gallagher
was using to provide care for her patient, and is not a part of the scope of practice.
3. In Dr. Gallagher’s decision-making practices, I feel she would argue that she used all the
principles to make the right choices for her patient. In my opinion, unfortunately I believe
that she did not truly use any of the principles in her decision making. The patient she
advised and instructed to take a new course of treatment for her epilepsy, did pass away,
making the argument that nonmaleficence was not a part of the doctors decision making.
I do not think Dr. Gallagher had enough knowledge or credentials pertaining to epileptic
medications, to fully respect the autonomy of the patient. With the lack of actual
knowledge, the patient was unable to make informed decisions pertaining to her health.
Alternatives were not provided to the patient, just the suggestion to stop taking
medications. If there is one principle I feel the doctor could argue is that of benefiance. I
believe that the doctor truly believed in the advice and instructions she was giving her
patient, feeling she was acting in benefiance, promoting client well-being through cranial
therapy. The principle of justice, whether she was acting in fairness and providing equal
treatment to all. During her trial, hundreds of patients wrote letters to state the amazing
care Dr. Gallagher provided them over the years. Her patient took her advice because
she obviously entrusted her as a professional. I just question if she was advising all her
patients to stop medications, or if it was just this patient. I feel there were many injustices
in the case, and if there wasn't it could have prevented a death.
4. If I was an attorney in the defense of Dr. Gallagher, the biggest argument I would have is
that Dr. Gallagher truly believed and had the tools and knowledge to advise the patient a
new course of treatment and care. Unfortunately, there are some adverse effects that no
one can control in medical settings. I think it would be very beneficial to go into depth
about chiropractic philosophy and the understanding of nerve interference, to validate
the technique of cranial therapy. To show the benefits and science behind the treatment,
and why it was advised by Dr. Gallagher. The use of previous case studies involving
epilepsy and the correction of the meninges and its benefits would prove that Dr.
Gallagher was providing care in the best interest of the patient. It would show why these
steps were given to the patient, with the philosophical reasoning and medical validity Dr.
Gallagher used in her decision making. That ultimately, she was most importantly
focused on the well-being of the patient, and not the death of the patient that
unfortunately resulted. It is a hard defense in my case, because I do feel Dr Gallagher
did cross the lines within the scope of practice of chiropractic care with her advice to her
patient.
Kreidler, Marc. “Bizarre Therapy Leads to Patient's Death.” Quackwatch, 1 Sept. 2016,
quackwatch.org/chiropractic/victims/gallagher/.
“Licensing Boards.” Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards > About,
directory.fclb.org/LicensingBoards/US/Pennsylvania.aspx.