Based on case law (Safer v. Estate of Pack, 1996), the duty to ...

[kellyjaisingh]

Based on case law (Safer v. Estate of Pack, 1996), the duty to warn persons of possible harm may extend to which of the following conditions?
 
  a. risk of sexually transmitted diseases c. genetically inherited disease risk
  b. risk of infectious diseases d. risk of physical harm

Question 2

The school nurse notes that an 8-year old often comes to school without a lunch. He is frequently tired and dizzy. He often complains of a stomachache.
 
  The nurse suspects the boy's family does not have the resources to purchase meals from the cafeteria. After talking with his parents, the nurse learns that their work schedules make preparing meals difficult. The nurse encourages the child's parents to apply for: a. National School Lunch Program
  b. Summer Lunch Program
  c. School Breakfast Program
  d. All of the above

[Dunkey]

Answer to Question 1

C

Feedback
A Incorrect. The case law in Safer v. Estate of Pack (1996) involves genetically inherited disease risk, not sexually transmitted diseases.
B Incorrect. The case law in Safer v. Estate of Pack (1996) involves genetically inherited disease risk, not risk of infectious diseases.
C Correct. In the case of Safer v. Estate of Pack (1996) a physician failed to warn the child of a client that she could have a higher risk of colon cancer and should receive early and frequent screening. When colon cancer developed in the daughter, the physician was sued for failure to warn.
D Incorrect. The case law in Safer v. Estate of Pack (1996) involves genetically inherited disease risk, not risk of physical harm.

Answer to Question 2

D
When the nurse suspects that a child's family is having difficulty providing meals for the children, the nurse can recommend that they apply for these programs. The programs differ by area, so the school nurse would need to inquire about what is available for families in that particular community.