It was Business Law class. We were discussing on Tort. Negligence to be exact.
It's a case of a doctor refusing to treat a patient, and the said patient died the next day, of arsenic poisoning. That's the gist.
Well, the full story, a man was gravely ill. And he went to see a nurse. And the nurse called a doctor. However the doctor asked him to see another doctor in the morning.
The next day the man died.
The patient's family brought the case to court, but didn't win the case because the doctor held a remote causation to the death.
The class, think the doctor is evil, for not treating the man. But I don't think so. He did ask the nurse to tell the patient to see another doctor. Maybe he is engaged to another assignment. He may not be able to cure the man too. Arsenic poisoning, like other heavy metal, needs chelation. The process takes long time and lots of side effects.
He would die even if the doctor treats the patient. And I do see it is too remote to sue the doctor. Maybe, they should look for a murderer.... probably his wife, or sons... or... but not the doctor.
When I said, the doctor did no wrong, my classmates would surely think that I am a wicked man...
And when I looked up in Wikipedia (to attach the link to this blog), apparently the judge and I share the same thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_v_Chelsea_%26_Kensington_Hospital_Management_Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment