Filing assault charges on medical professionals who makes mistakes

[Darwin333]

In post #19 of this thread I linked to an article about a dad who left a gun where it was accessible to a child. The child shot and killed another child. Now the dad is being charged with criminal neglect.

How is it criminal if they make a mistake?

The dad made a mistake, and is being charged with a crime.

How is the dads mistake any different then a doctor who leaves a swab in a patient, and the patient dies of an infection?

I haven't read the story but in general I disagree with charging the father with a crime in a situation like that. Obviously there are certain situations that I would agree with such as hiding a loaded gun in a babys crib or some other grossly negligent act.

With that said, just because one person is being treated imo unfairly (again, haven't read the facts just using the example) doesn't mean that we should treat everyone unfairly.

 

[Texashiker]

With that said, just because one person is being treated imo unfairly (again, haven't read the facts just using the example) doesn't mean that we should treat everyone unfairly.

I appreciate your honest answers, its a welcome change from the people who repeat what society has stamped in their head.

I would like to give three examples:

1 - dad leaves a firearm where a child can access it, dad is charged with child endangerment.

2 - police officer shoots unarmed suspect. Office might be charged with a crime.

3 - doctor leaves something in patient, patient dies from infection. Family sues doctor.

All three examples someone may or may not have acted in a negligent manner. Two of the examples are charged with a crime, the doctor is sued and his insurance has to pay.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can we say the same thing about police officers? How about FBI, CIA, Secret Service? Every time a law enforcement officer uses deadly force, there is some kind of investigation.

If a doctor acts in a negligent way, its unlikely that criminal charges should be filed.

If a police officer acts in a negligent way, the public will be demanding some kind of punishment.

Using the example that we will have fewer doctors because they fear being held responsible, then we should have fewer people in law enforcement.

Who in their right mind would want to go into law enforcement if everytime they used lethal force, the death was going to be treated as a criminal investigation.

Were not talking about police. We're talking about the virtual certainty of criminal action because of the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

You didn't answer the question, you are diverting. No one will take up health care as you want it. That means no treatment. Helpful website suggestions then? You cannot threaten author consequences

 

[Texashiker]

We're talking about the virtual certainty of criminal action because of the inherent uncertainty of medicine.

A doctor removes the wrong kidney, and that is an "inherent uncertainty"?

Its uncertain whether the doctor knows their right from their left? How does that work out?

 

[mect]

Your proposal is about the equivalent to holding a soldier liable for any accidental civilian casualty in the war zone. When you spend your whole day every day working under circumstances where any small error can lead to someone's death, you cannot treat them the same as someone that has to have a serious lapse in judgement for the same to happen. It is all a matter of degrees of the negligence.

 

[WelshBloke]

I appreciate your honest answers, its a welcome change from the people who repeat what society has stamped in their head.

I would like to give three examples:

1 - dad leaves a firearm where a child can access it, dad is charged with child endangerment.

2 - police officer shoots unarmed suspect. Office might be charged with a crime.

3 - doctor leaves something in patient, patient dies from infection. Family sues doctor.

All three examples someone may or may not have acted in a negligent manner. Two of the examples are charged with a crime, the doctor is sued and his insurance has to pay.

Number 3 is happening in the course of a legitimate necessary procedure that the patient has agreed to and been informed that there are risks.

 

[actuarial]

I appreciate your honest answers, its a welcome change from the people who repeat what society has stamped in their head.

I would like to give three examples:

1 - dad leaves a firearm where a child can access it, dad is charged with child endangerment.

2 - police officer shoots unarmed suspect. Office might be charged with a crime.

3 - doctor leaves something in patient, patient dies from infection. Family sues doctor.

All three examples someone may or may not have acted in a negligent manner. Two of the examples are charged with a crime, the doctor is sued and his insurance has to pay.

In the first two cases there was not a contract between two consenting people, so the situations are radically different. And the doctor could still face criminal charges if it was gross negligence. To complete your scenarios.

1 - Dad leaves a firearm where a child can access it, dad is charged with child endangerment. There is no civil case as dad cannot sue himself.

2 - Police officer shoots unarmed suspect and may face criminal charges. Family sues city.

3 - Doctor leaves something in patient, patient dies from infection. Doctor may face criminal charges. Family sues doctor.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
When you go to a doctor for treatment, you and the doctor have a legal and binding agreement. If you need surgery, and the surgery is preformed wrong, why are the options limited to medical malpractice? The key word there is "why". A lot of people do not like to ask the important question of "why" must we do certain things certain ways?

I think because in most cases society doesn't see a "crime" in making a mistake.

If, on the other hand, the doctor was 'evil' and purposefully cutting off peoples' wrong feet I've no doubt there would be serious criminal charges.

And, clearly if the doctor is so lame, so lackadaisical in carry out his/her responsibilities then criminal negligence will be charged.

But in the absence of purposefully disfiguring people, etc, civil damages and loss of the license to practice (and in extreme cases criminal negligence) is what society deems fit. Do we really want to put people in jail for making an (innocent) mistake? What good does that serve? How is that more of a deterrent than suing the crappola out of them, taking all their money, humiliating them, and revoking their license so they can't work as a physician again. Isn't that enough?

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A doctor removes the wrong kidney, and that is an "inherent uncertainty"?

Its uncertain whether the doctor knows their right from their left? How does that work out?

As has been shown physicians can and are prosecuted depending on circumstance. You appear to be proposing a greatly increased application of criminal law and you haven't really defined the limits. Since lawyers will salivate at this opportunity regardless of merit, providers will be uninsurable, subject to the vagaries of what constitutes "mistake", macabre examples notwithstanding. It is guaranteed ruin. Now bring up any possibility you like. Cite whatever wrong you believe is being done, but for heavens sake answer the real question of where you are getting help after you chase every one away.

 

[DrPizza]

No, drpizza did not answer the question. drpizza is a teacher, and teachers like to suppress abstract and free thought and or ideas.

I most certainly did answer the question. Your argument is based on a lack of understanding of the difference between negligence and criminal negligence. And, in fact, when you quoted me, you edited out my link to providing that information, while making the false claim that I added nothing to this thread. That makes you intellectually dishonest.

I did nothing to suppress your idea. I, and just about everyone else have merely pointed out that your idea is stupid. Doctors are human. Humans make mistakes. Do you think that every doctor in existence has gotten a perfect score on all of their exams? You stated in this thread that they need to follow procedures flawlessly. Why is it then that doctors consult with other doctors, and that doctors often have differing opinions on which procedure to follow?

But in stereotypical pigheaded fashion, you've refused to listen to everyone arguing against your "abstract idea" in this thread. Once again (this makes it twice), I'll link to another source where you can see that there's a difference between negligence and criminally negligent: http://www.shouselaw.com/criminal-negligence.html

Furthermore, you're not the first person in the world to have this silly idea.

The professionals such as lawyers or doctors posses special skills for performing special tasks, but that does not mean that they can assure about the positive results in every dealing. What they can assure is that, they posses the requisite skill in their respective branch of profession and they will exercise their skill with reasonable competence while performing the task. It is not compulsory for every professional to posses the highest level of skill in his respective branch of profession.
A mere accident or deviation from the normal professional practice is not necessarily an evidence of negligence. Sometimes there may be an error of judgment while making a choice between the available procedures. But as long as the adopted procedure is found to be acceptable by medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he choose to follow one procedure and not the other resulting in failure.
The court further observed that if a doctor is kept under the fear of legal action then he cannot perform a successful treatment. A doctor under the fear of facing a criminal prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reasons, whether attributable to him or not, can never go for a successful treatment. Even the doctors may feel it better to leave a terminal patient untreated when the chances of success may be less than 10% or so. In case of serious patients who are in a state of ‘coma’ or in case of grave emergencies where the patients death is almost certain, the doctors may try for a last effort towards saving the life, but if there is a fear of criminal prosecution then the doctors may not go for taking a risk and facing a legal action.

Guess what - this was from India.


You seem to be the kind of guy who would attempt to sue a good samaritan who saved your life by giving CPR, but in the process, broke some of your ribs. Ahhhh, that evoked an emotional response, huh? If you're saying "no" - then you're now applying a stricter standard to doctors than to everyone else, while claiming that doctors are presently held to a lower standard.

 

[Sunburn74]

A doctor removes the wrong kidney, and that is an "inherent uncertainty"?

Its uncertain whether the doctor knows their right from their left? How does that work out?

This is a common misconception about medical practice. The reality is that for a medical error to occur, numerous holes and levels in patient safety protocol have to be bypassed. Sometimes, its due to negligence. The majority of the time, its something that simply had never happened before, a concurrence of freak events leading to something disastrous happening. The theory is called the swiss hole theory of medical errors and that is what is taught in most medical schools and public health school. Hospital systems are built to expect and catch errors. Essentially, patient safety protocols are like numerous stacked slices of swiss cheese. Errors happen when all the holes line up in just the right way and then the patient falls through and is harmed. The overwhelmingly large number of medical errors generally happen not because of bad practice, negligence, or individual error but because something happened to beat the system.

Take the example of the wrong kidney being removed. Before every surgery, the surgeon should read the name of the patient, his MRN, and the procedure being performed. Then everyone in the room (an anesthesiologist, the 3-4 nurses/surgical assistants, the fellows and the residents) are asked if they object. So for a wrong kidney to be removed accidentally, whatever the reason has to fool/get past about 5-10 people at the minimum. And thats just at the level of the OR. If 5-10 people think the left kidney needs to come out, and not the right, its probably something more systemic leading them to believe that rather than just a rogue doctor doing whatever the hell he wants and saying damn the consequences.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

This is a common misconception about medical practice. The reality is that for a medical error to occur, numerous holes and levels in patient safety protocol have to be bypassed. Sometimes, its due to negligence. The majority of the time, its something that simply had never happened before, a concurrence of freak events leading to something disastrous happening. The theory is called the swiss hole theory of medical errors and that is what is taught in most medical schools and public health school. Hospital systems are built to expect and catch errors. Essentially, patient safety protocols are like numerous stacked slices of swiss cheese. Errors happen when all the holes line up in just the right way and then the patient falls through and is harmed. The overwhelmingly large number of medical errors generally happen not because of bad practice, negligence, or individual error but because something happened to beat the system.

Take the example of the wrong kidney being removed. Before every surgery, the surgeon should read the name of the patient, his MRN, and the procedure being performed. Then everyone in the room (an anesthesiologist, the 3-4 nurses/surgical assistants, the fellows and the residents) are asked if they object. So for a wrong kidney to be removed accidentally, whatever the reason has to fool/get past about 5-10 people at the minimum. And thats just at the level of the OR. If 5-10 people think the left kidney needs to come out, and not the right, its probably something more systemic leading them to believe that rather than just a rogue doctor doing whatever the hell he wants and saying damn the consequences.

Plus, here for an operation the patient has to watch the projected incision site drawn on with marker and the patient has to be awake for part of the OR surgical checklist. The medical profession has come a long way in terms of quality control. These things used to happen, but not much anymore.

 

[Texashiker]

How is it criminal if they make a mistake? And this should end this thread.

Lets bring this zombie thread back, because here is an example of what I was referring to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-death-attempting-late-night-tummy-tuck.html

Dr. Soraya Abbassian, 44, has been charged with manslaughter after allegedly performing a tummy tuck on a friend who later died

Instead of suing the doctor in civil court, maybe doctors should be persecuted like everyone else.

 

[Darwin333]

Lets bring this zombie thread back, because here is an example of what I was referring to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-death-attempting-late-night-tummy-tuck.html


Instead of suing the doctor in civil court, maybe doctors should be persecuted like everyone else.

That is a clear cut case of negligence and not simply a mistake. There is a huge difference.

 

[mikeymikec]

Personally I'm surprised that someone is posting a "news item" from Fox News / Daily Mail / pretty much any other tabloid with the assumption that:

a) it actually happened
b) it actually happened the way the article says it did

 

[Texashiker]

That is a clear cut case of negligence and not simply a mistake.

In the firearms field we are taught there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. If someone follows basic safety procedures, then there should be no discharges. Everything else is a negligent discharge.

So what about the baby in the opening post? Was that a mistake or negligence?

If the doctor I linked to above followed basic operating procedure, is she still negligent?

 

[TheVrolok]

In the firearms field we are taught there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. If someone follows basic safety procedures, then there should be no discharges. Everything else is a negligent discharge.

This analogy is such a gross oversimplification that it cannot be intelligently applied to the medical field as a whole. Simply put, in medicine, everything can be done right (according to SOP/guidelines) and bad things still happen.

So what about the baby in the opening post? Was that a mistake or negligence?

I haven't reviewed it, but from what I recall about reading the article, I'm leaning toward negligence.

If the doctor I linked to above followed basic operating procedure, is she still negligent?

If the doctor had followed acceptable guidelines/OPs, then no, she isn't.

 

[Texashiker]

This analogy is such a gross oversimplification that it cannot be intelligently applied to the medical field as a whole. Simply put, in medicine, everything can be done right (according to SOP/guidelines) and bad things still happen.

The example is about following standard operating procedure.

I am fully aware that sometimes bad things happen it medicine, its just a fact of life.

To cut a childs finger off in the opening post, I am pretty sure the nurse did not follow standard operating procedure.

In one case we have a nurse who cuts the finger of a child off, and nothing happens except a civil lawsuit.

In the other case we have a doctor who has a patient die, and charges are filed against the doctor.

Shouldn't charges have been filed against the nurse in the OP?

 

[TheVrolok]

Shouldn't charges have been filed against the nurse in the OP?

I would have thought so, and maybe they since have been? I have no idea.

 

[CitizenKain]

No, drpizza did not answer the question. drpizza is a teacher, and teachers like to suppress abstract and free thought and or ideas.

No, he answered it, just you are incapable of thinking and didn't understand it. The only people who think teachers like to suppress abstract and free thought are failures who couldn't make it through school.

 

[Texashiker]

No, he answered it, just you are incapable of thinking and didn't understand it. The only people who think teachers like to suppress abstract and free thought are failures who couldn't make it through school.

Well, I admit I hate school and I have a strong dislike for teachers.

When I find out someone near me is a teacher, such as at a restaurant, I feel an inner anger start to come over me. I have to exert every form of self-control to prevent myself from being hostile towards that person.

As for how I did in school, almost failed high school, but had a 3.8 gpa in college. And that 3.8 was working a full time job 40+ hours every week. Even working 50 - 60 hours a week at my full time job, I still had a 3.5 - 3.6 gpa.