English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-19 15:35:11 · 5 answers · asked by Mailman 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

5 answers

Here are a few from my direct experience:

(1) A woman is diagnosed with cancer. It is treated and she is declared in good health. Then six years later she is re-diagnosed with advanced stage terminal cancer, having had a relapse. Her insurance company could have prevented this and saved her life if they'd done the correct tests (CAT scans every six months, which is standard for cancer survivors). She dies less than six months after her re-diagnosis, and her health insurance company cannot be sued because they committed no direct malpractice.

(2) A man goes to the hospital repeatedly complaining of chest pains. His doctors administer a couple of tests and declare him in good health. They do not do further tests which would reveal the source of the chest pains because those tests would cost the insurance company money. A few months after the chest pains begin, he dies of a heart attack. Again, the insurance provider is not responsible because the malpractice was indirect- they did something, just not enough.

(3) A man is stalking his ex-girlfriend and her family. They take out a restraining order but he repeatedly violates it. Then he breaks into their house and robs them. He is later found with stolen property from their home (including a gun), and is arrested and charged with restraining order violation, possession of stolen property, and possession of a concealed weapon. However, to save money on court costs, the district attorney offers him a plea bargain for a 7 month sentence. If he had been tried and convicted, he would have served a minimum of 7 years. This is all the justice that his victims will now get, and then he will resume stalking them, again with very little recourse.

2007-04-19 21:33:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That animal abusers aren't given stricter sentences....that someone who has an absolutely amazing voice that is a gift from God, but isn't considered to be "beautiful" by society's high standards or may be overweight will be overlooked if they want to pursue a singing career, but someone who is "hot" will get ahead even if they can't sing that great.

2007-04-20 00:26:39 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

ok say we were at a club and you were wearing this hot skirt and you were sitting right across from me and you would never open your legs (now that's a gross injustice)

2007-04-19 23:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by zellparis 2 · 0 0

That children lack the rights of adults. Children are, in effect, second class citizens.

2007-04-19 22:39:13 · answer #4 · answered by guru 7 · 0 0

Telling a child - no!

2007-04-19 23:33:08 · answer #5 · answered by cua13 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers