How "sick" and "cruel" is this???

Question

This is a true story.
A man in a restaurant is having a heart attack and choking on his food in front of his wife and friends.
A table next to him, where a doctor sits, wouldn't help "revive" the victim responding: " I won't touch him"!
911 was called, the fire department showed up after 15 minutes and helped the victim transporting him to the nearest hospital.
Truly, the doctor, is to me totally out of place!! What about the "oath" taken when becoming a doctor??

Answer 1

Brings a new meaning to 'being off the clock' what kinda world are we living in? However just to argue with myself, they may have being a Doctor in anything, doesn't mean that they would be able to do anything more than any ordinary person, 911 was called and they are the best people for the job...

Answer 2

This issue is obviously a very politicised one - but there is actually a perfectly simple, logical and sensible answer to help cut through the arguments. The word, 'rape' is a normal English word, but it is also a legal term with a specific legal definition. As with many legal terms, it's legal definition does not necessarily coincide with how people use the term in normal conversations. It also differs from one country to another. The same is true with assault. If I were to come up behind you and flick you on the ear for a joke, the law may well classify my action as an assault. However, as part of a non-legal conversation, an assault refers to something much more serious. The legal definition of assault is different from the way it is generally used as a normal English word in general conversation. Similar issues arise with most other legal definitions. To say, 'Rape is rape' suggests that the legal definition of the word and the general non-legal use of the word are exactly the same - but clearly they are not. The phrase, of course, is used as a sloppy sort of shorthand for saying that all rapes (as defined by the law) should be taken seriously. So, why not just say, "All rapes should be taken seriously"? It would cause a lot less confusion. The phrase is also used to imply that it is wrong to suggest that some rapes are more serious than others. Fairly clearly, though, some rapes ARE more serious than others. If two rather drunk people get into bed together and have sex, then, according to the legal definitions in some countries, they have both raped each other. However, this situation is obviously far less serious than someone being raped at knifepoint. To say, 'Rape is not always rape' is a way of saying that the legal definition of rape does not always coincide with the way we would use that term in a normal, non-legal conversation - and this is obviously true. Unfortunately, people often refuse to see common sense whenever it doesn't happily coincide with the political message they wish to promote. (M)

Answer 3

That's the catch-22 about lawsuits: they create
conundrums such as this one. On the one hand;
he could respond, the man dies or is paralyzed or
crippled for life. The grieving family members and some ambulance chasing attorney find out that the good doctor had been drinking wine with his meal prior to his attempts to save this man's life.
This doctor winds up being sued. If he loses the lawsuit his insurance automatically goes sky-high.
He is also at risk of losing his medical license and sanctioned by the board as unfit to practice medicine ever again. This doctor could lose his practice, his reputation, his home, his wife and kids
through divorce and his entire livelihood off of a single kind deed.
Yes, I'd say this doctor sounds really "sick" and
"cruel" to me.
If you want to fault anyone lay the blames where they belong: the insurance companies, frivolous
lawsuit claims, greedy attorneys and family members who think that doctors are Gods and that their work comes with a guarantee.
This is what lawsuits do to doctors; they tie their hands and make them afraid to do their jobs
outside of the parameters of their domains.

Answer 4

Blame the huge upsurgence of lawsuits for such a thing. Yeah, if it were me, I don't think I could have let this go. HOWEVER, if the doctor intervened and the patient had died anyway, he has just set himself up for a huge legal battle which could ultimately cost him a huge amount of settlement money. Malpractice insurance only protects medical professionals on the job. Off duty interventions are not covered, therefore it is dangerous to intervene when the outcome might not be considered "heroic".

Answer 5

honestly. i question if he was a dr.

in the medical field, i have a LEGAL obligation to help.
if the person still dies and the family tries to sue me i am covered under the good samaritan act.

i dont think he was a dr. or at least a dr that could help the man out.

if he did not want to help, there would have never been a mention of him being a dr. if he is a dr, he has a legal bind to help.

if there is an accident on the street and i pass it without helping the injured and there is no medical attention there, i can be in a lot of trouble if someone "sees" me drive by and not offer assistance. IT'S THE LAW HERE.

Answer 6

Unfortunately in the current litigious state, where everybody's a victim, he could have been worried that had he tried to help the man - and failed - that the family would sue him against his malpractice insurance, costing him thousands of dollars in insurance, just for being a caring human being. So he stood back and waited for the ambulance.
This is what the attitude of so many has brought us too. "If you do wrong by me - I'll sue!!!!" they shout, but the don't know how many are harmed by that attitude. No-one wants to help for fear of facing court, just for trying to do the right thing.
Here they brought in the "Good Samaritan" Law, which basically says as long as you are trying to help, in good faith, then you can't be sued.

***If you want proof of that - just look how many people recommended to sue that doctor for what? For not doing anything!

Answer 7

unfortunately we have created that situation for ourselves and now really cannot blame the doctor...truly we did...just look at the woman who was in the car wreck and the man pulled over and got her out of her car before it caught fire...he was sued by her for breaking her leg in the attempt...it is sad the state of our country at the moment...and the care for others has been replace with law suite ideas...if the doctor had helped and the man died...the family could have sued the doctor for malpractice...even though he didn't treat him in a facility...i don't even know why those law suits are allowed...seems the judge should just say this is ridiculous and dismiss them but no one wants to actually take that on...sorry it happened but with everything the way it is right now...i don't know that i can place blame on the doctor...btw i know this isn't going to be popular and really don't want any hate emails...thanks...

Answer 8

I would personally help him, but it is a Grey area for many doctors now. You can thank the justice system that allows frivolous law suits for that one; or the doctor was just a jerk.
Either way, why did no one else help him, is the bigger question. Not like the Heimlich is some big mysterious maneuver only doctors are privileged to learn....I learned that in like 6th grade!

Answer 9

He should have his liscence revoked.
What would happen if it was an off duty cop walking down the street and witnessed someone being robbed and beaten and refused to do anything? It would make international news and he'd never hold a job higher than a burger flipper for the rest of his life.
Same thing should happen to that doctor, if you can even call him that.
I know it's a law in my state that if you have any knowledge of medical treatment I.E. cpr, that you are obligated to help the person in need in any way possible.

Answer 10

maybe he was not a very good Doctor and did not know what to do, the guy was better off waiting for the fire department, at least he lived, or maybe it was the doctors hidden lover and he became in a panic rage. Kidding ya there