|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Editor
Site Admin
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Location: India
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:37 pm Post subject: Is doctor criminally liable if patient dies due to error? |
 |
|
Every now and then we come across medical cases in which the patient has suffered due to the doctor’s sheer negligence. The result may be death or an irreparable loss, which occurred due to the incorrect diagnosis by the doctor.
In a recent Supreme Court judgment in India, the court ruled that the doctor is not criminally liable if the patient dies due to error of judgment committed by him. The case in question was that of a plastic surgeon who faced trial for causing the death of a person who had wanted to remove a minor deformity in his nose.
This raises a question whether the doctor who commits such an error of judgment, which led to the death of the patient, is liable for criminal punishment. On the face of it, after listening to the sad story, your blood may boil and you may want the doctor to be hanged, but let us also consider another perspective.
Since times immemorial, the relationship between a doctor and a patient is based on trust as the patient approaches the doctor with complete faith that he would rid him of his ailments. The knowledge prowess of the doctor and his decision-making capabilities, and his experience in dealing with a variety of different cases is what makes his skill special. However, I feel that it takes the right combination of skill and talent to do adequate justice to this ancient prestigious profession.
No doctor would intentionally be careless where there might be a question of life and death. In my opinion, an honest doctor would work hard towards curing the ill patient. But we have to keep in mind that the doctor is also a human and might commit mistakes. He is not God. In addition, if he is constantly under the threat that if anything goes wrong, he would be criminally liable then he would be reluctant to take risks. There have been cases of accidents and emergencies where the doctors have refused to treat until the police formalities are over, as they do not want their neck deep into the trouble. Thus the issue of criminal liability often handicaps the doctors and might force them to shrug off their responsibility.
In India, after the private medical practice came under the purview of Consumer Protection Act in mid-nineties, the cost of treatment has also increased rapidly. Now, the doctors want to be doubly sure before coming up with a diagnosis and suggest a series of tests, which prove to be rather expensive for an average citizen. Thus, it is a no-win situation for the patients.
Therefore, my gutfeel is that the Supreme Court has taken a correct decision because if the doctors possess the right combination of education and attitude, they would always work towards benefiting the mankind.
What are your thoughts on the issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RebelliousOne
GutFeel Senior
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Is doctor criminally liable if patient dies due to error |
|
|
| Editor wrote: | Every now and then we come across medical cases in which the patient has suffered due to the doctor’s sheer negligence. The result may be death or an irreparable loss, which occurred due to the incorrect diagnosis by the doctor.
In a recent Supreme Court judgment in India, the court ruled that the doctor is not criminally liable if the patient dies due to error of judgment committed by him. The case in question was that of a plastic surgeon who faced trial for causing the death of a person who had wanted to remove a minor deformity in his nose.
This raises a question whether the doctor who commits such an error of judgment, which led to the death of the patient, is liable for criminal punishment. On the face of it, after listening to the sad story, your blood may boil and you may want the doctor to be hanged, but let us also consider another perspective.
Since times immemorial, the relationship between a doctor and a patient is based on trust as the patient approaches the doctor with complete faith that he would rid him of his ailments. The knowledge prowess of the doctor and his decision-making capabilities, and his experience in dealing with a variety of different cases is what makes his skill special. However, I feel that it takes the right combination of skill and talent to do adequate justice to this ancient prestigious profession.
No doctor would intentionally be careless where there might be a question of life and death. In my opinion, an honest doctor would work hard towards curing the ill patient. But we have to keep in mind that the doctor is also a human and might commit mistakes. He is not God. In addition, if he is constantly under the threat that if anything goes wrong, he would be criminally liable then he would be reluctant to take risks. There have been cases of accidents and emergencies where the doctors have refused to treat until the police formalities are over, as they do not want their neck deep into the trouble. Thus the issue of criminal liability often handicaps the doctors and might force them to shrug off their responsibility.
In India, after the private medical practice came under the purview of Consumer Protection Act in mid-nineties, the cost of treatment has also increased rapidly. Now, the doctors want to be doubly sure before coming up with a diagnosis and suggest a series of tests, which prove to be rather expensive for an average citizen. Thus, it is a no-win situation for the patients.
Therefore, my gutfeel is that the Supreme Court has taken a correct decision because if the doctors possess the right combination of education and attitude, they would always work towards benefiting the mankind.
What are your thoughts on the issue? |
Editor:
Having gone under the scaple several times myself, I can assure you that patients preparing to undergo an operation in the US must sign a "waiver," which is a document in which the patiet acknowledges that s/he holds the doctor blameless for unintentional errors in judgement, or for unexpected circumstances that lead to death during the operation. Negligence, however, is not covered under the "waiver," and, should additional injury or death result due to a doctor's dereliction or inattention, that doctor can be held accountable in civil court -- or even criminal court, if it is found that the doctor was incompetent.
One way to minimize risks, is for prospective patients to seek out a second -- and even a third -- opinion before agreeing to undergo surgery. Doctors, like the rest of us, are humans and, consequently, subject to the same frailties as are the rest of us. Simply because they have an "M.D." behind their name does not imply that their opinions are infallible; indeed, I have run across a few that deserved to be wrapped in chains and dropped over the side of any ship in the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean.
People put too much faith in the initials that follow a person's names, such as M.D., B.A., M.A., PhD, et cetera. They tend to forget, or even ignore, the sad fact that men, and women, too, have agendas, ulterior motives and, at times, even criminal intent, despite what initials follow their names. This is why it is imparative for prospective patients to seek out as many qualified doctors as is practical before committing to any surgical procedure.
To make matters worse, some folk believe that "socialized medicine' will rid the medical profession of incompetent doctors. Unfortunately, such a medical system too often allows 'quacks' to entrench themselves; and rather than produce good medicine, they insist that their patiets submit to every test known to man before any surgical procedure is performed. This method, of course, increases the cost to the patient, or at least to the patient's insurance company, as well as shovels a lot of unnecessary -- and expensive -- medical tests and costs on to the shoulders of the patient.
I really do not know what the answer is to acquiring qualified medical assistance, other than to seek and acquire the best there is available, despite the personal cost. I know that laws designed to protect doctors produce contrary results, and doctors become more unfit; while at the same time, laws designed to protect the patients too often lead to a scacity of doctors. Perhaps the best course of action would be to provide qualified doctors with the best training available, while cautioning them to be on their very best behavior -- or else suffer the consequence in civil and/or criminal court.
Bottom line: My gutfeel is that one should avoid surgery whenever possible and, where not possible, get two, three or more opinions before agreeing to let someone cut me open with a sharp knife ('ell, I've got enemies who'll do it for free <lol>).
RO
Last edited by RebelliousOne on Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mellisa
GutFeel Junior
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well i don't agree with this decision. If the doctor is negligent...he or she must face the music or the criminal punishment. After all a patient has died in the process  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RebelliousOne
GutFeel Senior
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mellisa wrote: | | Well i don't agree with this decision. If the doctor is negligent...he or she must face the music or the criminal punishment. After all a patient has died in the process :evil: |
Mellisa:
But what if the doctor is not negligent; what if the doctor did nothing wrong, yet the patient still died? Such things do happen; indeed, the very reason that many patients undergo surgery is because they are suffering with a life-threatening disease or injury. At what point do we say the death is the fault of the doctor's, rather than the patient's?
Simply because a patient died does not mean the doctor is criminal lible; indeed, for a crime to have been committed, one must have motive, intent and action -- or, gross negligence, in the case of a dioctor. Yet how do we determine gross negligence; how do we afix blame just because a patient died?
No, the death of a patient is not prima facie evidence that a doctor is criminally responsible for the death -- and never should be. If the doctor is, for all intent and purpose, is qualified, and committed no errors, then we must accept the fact that fate has played a part, and let the departed rest in peace.
Bottom line: There are no guarantees in this life, especially when one willingly allows another to cut him open. My gutfeel is that doo-doo happens, and we must, at times, accept the fact that people die for for reasons of their own. Let's not now blame the guy, or gal, who was trying to save his, or her, life.
RO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Site Admin
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 337
Location: India
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Is doctor criminally liable if patient dies due to error |
|
|
| RebelliousOne wrote: |
Perhaps the best course of action would be to provide qualified doctors with the best training available, while cautioning them to be on their very best behavior |
My gutfeel is that the above thought is the crux of this matter. Certainly, more education and training will eventually lead to a reduction in the patients deaths due to doctors negligence. Here we are only talking about qualified doctors who possess legitimate degrees rather than quacks.
I also agree with the idea that before any traetment, it is always better have a second or even a third opinion on the whole thing. So when more people are involved, the accountability increases automatically. Also by discussing the nuances of the case the possibilty of incorrect diagnosis or treatment also decreases rapidly.
But i am skeptical whether the same concept applies to the surgical operation also. Because only one of the doctors would be performing the surgery and his/her chances of going wrong always exist, irrespective of the fact that other experts have been alraedy consulted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mellisa
GutFeel Junior
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well RO, i think that there needs to be a clear demarcation between gross negligence and mere carelessness. Once that line is drawn, then we can easily drag the culprits to the criminal courts and leave the innocent dctors behind....any comments  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RebelliousOne
GutFeel Senior
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:38 am Post subject: Re: Is doctor criminally liable if patient dies due to error |
|
|
| Editor wrote: | | RebelliousOne wrote: |
Perhaps the best course of action would be to provide qualified doctors with the best training available, while cautioning them to be on their very best behavior |
My gutfeel is that the above thought is the crux of this matter. Certainly, more education and training will eventually lead to a reduction in the patients deaths due to doctors negligence. Here we are only talking about qualified doctors who possess legitimate degrees rather than quacks.
I also agree with the idea that before any traetment, it is always better have a second or even a third opinion on the whole thing. So when more people are involved, the accountability increases automatically. Also by discussing the nuances of the case the possibilty of incorrect diagnosis or treatment also decreases rapidly.
But i am skeptical whether the same concept applies to the surgical operation also. Because only one of the doctors would be performing the surgery and his/her chances of going wrong always exist, irrespective of the fact that other experts have been alraedy consulted. |
Editor:
There are no guarantees in this life. If someone agrees to a surgical procedure, then that person must understand that there is always a chance that s/he will not wake up.
Doctors are flesh and blood; mortal folk who, despite the best education and training, are subject to making mistakes, or who are incapable of restarting a stopped heart. Surgery is always dangerous, and just because a patients dies does not necessarily indict the doctor.
We must remember that whenever we put our fate into the hands of a mortal, there always exists the chance that something wrong will happen. It is part and parcel of this game we call life. Doctors are not God; indeed, too many of them are lower on the evolutionary scale than even Darwin could have imagined. Still, like lawyers, they are a necessary evil, and we must never foreget that fact.
Get more than one medical opinion before any surgery, and make sure that the insurance papers are filled out properly. The rest is in the hands of God.
Amen?
RO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RebelliousOne
GutFeel Senior
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 64
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: Some Patiets Are Doomed To Die |
|
|
| Mellisa wrote: | | Well RO, i think that there needs to be a clear demarcation between gross negligence and mere carelessness. Once that line is drawn, then we can easily drag the culprits to the criminal courts and leave the innocent dctors behind....any comments :?: |
Mellisa:
Why do I get the impression that you believe that every death in surgery is attributable to the doctor? There are some patients who stand little to no chance of surviving surgery despite the very best medical care; indeed, trama and disease have trumped medical science more times than the other way around. The very fact that someone needs surgery implies that their medical condition is serious and that, very possibly, their life is in danger regardless of whether or not they elect to have surgery.
I believe you have set your standards too high for doctors; agreed, there are some who should be sent to the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean will all the lawyers, but we must never forget that doctors -- and patients -- are human, and people do die. There are no guarantees in this life.
Just because a patient dies does not suggest that the doctor is at fault. The injury or disease may be advanced, and all the doctor can hope to do is extend the patient's life by days, weeks or months -- if that! Some times, though, nothing can be done, and the patient dies.
Yes, yes, by all means, weed out the incompentents, but do not set your standards so high that you confuse a doctor with God. Mortals are as mortals do, and we must understand that for everything we do, there is a chance that it will kill us. Such is the nature of life.
RO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
GutFeel Senior
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point of discussion is that if the patient dies during the surgery is the doctor liable.
In my opinion, every operation should be recorded using a video camera if possible. This evidence can be used(if unfortunately the patient dies) in case of judging whether it was doctor's fault or not, whether it was gross negligence or the situation was not under doctor's control.
I agree that doctor is not God but in case it is found that it was gross negligence, he or she can be tried in the criminal court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
GutFeel Junior
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 23
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel that the patient should be proactive before surgery. He or she should not hesitate to take a second or third opinion from other medical experts.
If the doctor is honest then he will not mind that his patient consults other doctors too on the matter, and if in case he objects to it, the patient should not mind looking for someone more professional.
But in case after taking all the precautions the patient dies, then the doctor is not to blame. That is my gutfeel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group • Forum skin by Volize
|
| |
|
|
