Judge rules against family of dead corporal
-
In that case, the woman was plain unlucky.Originally posted by dragg:everytime we visit a doctor the question will popped up - 'are you allergic to any medicine?'
there is a catch. we will only know of the allergy after taking the medicine. this woman was really unlucky. she died because of the allergy and it is nobody's fault.
this is because the doctor did not prescribe the wrong medicine, but a drug that the patient was allergic to. and the catch is none of them knew it!!! -
the funny thing is the specific drug prescribed is known to cause the skin problem. why is it still used in singapore?Originally posted by iveco:In that case, the woman was plain unlucky. -
In Singapore doctors are protected from lawsuits unlike in the US where even a small thing can be the end of the doctor's career.
-
Medical malpractice is a big issue in the US.
-
The drug in question is used by thousands of Singaporeans everyday. The particular syndrome that the unfortunate lady suffered from happens like one every few hundred thousand.Originally posted by dragg:the funny thing is the specific drug prescribed is known to cause the skin problem. why is it still used in singapore? -
Of course there is no criminal negligence, it is reckless disregard for human lives!
I wonder why those doctors take up medicine if they are not interested in treating people. They should have taken up psychology or psychiatry since they are so obsessed with what and how people think and behave. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
As Professor Leo explained during the hearing, the symptoms that the unfortunate deceased presented with were not of infective diseases. If someone did not present with the group of symptoms that characterise a particular disease, it is difficult for a doctor to come to the correct conclusion, isn't it?
Even the doctors themselves on testimony did not deny 'failing to diagose or treat Cpl Chua', clearly indicating that their planned defence stemmed from convincing the judge that the infection symptoms were 'so atypical' and rare that they could not be faulted for failing to save his life.
From a doctor's point of view, is that a fair assessment? Worst, from a neutral's point of view, isn't that a blatant excuse?
We are not asking doctors to be omnipotent lifesavers, nor are we saying that they are infallible, but were all avenues to prevent it happening explored? [/b]
Hence, they did "fail to diagnose or treat" Cpl Chua, but that is only clear on hindsight, not at that point in time. -
Well I know of my allergies when I was a little child.Originally posted by dragg:everytime we visit a doctor the question will popped up - 'are you allergic to any medicine?'
there is a catch. we will only know of the allergy after taking the medicine. this woman was really unlucky. she died because of the allergy and it is nobody's fault.
this is because the doctor did not prescribe the wrong medicine, but a drug that the patient was allergic to. and the catch is none of them knew it!!! -
Hmm.. i think we should be fair to the doctors. I'm sure they did all they could.Originally posted by pearlie27:Of course there is no criminal negligence, it is reckless disregard for human lives!
I wonder why those doctors take up medicine if they are not interested in treating people. They should have taken up psychology or psychiatry since they are so obsessed with what and how people think and behave.
Like in the second case, the doctor would have no way of knowing that the patient had an allergy to Augmentin if she had never developed an allergic reaction to it before.. and that was why a verdict of misadventure was recorded, and not negligence.
After all, Augmentin is one of the most commonly used antibiotics and such a severe allergic reaction to it is so rare! -
Hi cornyfish2000
i'm talking about the late Cpl Chua's case. The drug allergy case was a freak though tragic accident. -
you wouldnt know until you meet the killer one like the unlucky lady. afterall there are so many out there.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well I know of my allergies when I was a little child.
i presume chances are low that people will react very negatively to most drugs in small dosage. -
There is a reason for that. If there are too many lawsuits, it would mean an increase in medical insurance. Which in turn would led to an increase in medical cost for everyone.Originally posted by highway69:In Singapore doctors are protected from lawsuits unlike in the US where even a small thing can be the end of the doctor's career. -
Nope, Singapore docs are not protected from lawsuits... if they are they wouldn't have to spend thousands paying for their medical insurance premiums every year liao.
-
Indeed. I am not disputing that they may not have known or be in a position to properly diagonse CPL Chua.Originally posted by meowingdog:As Professor Leo explained during the hearing, the symptoms that the unfortunate deceased presented with were not of infective diseases. If someone did not present with the group of symptoms that characterise a particular disease, it is difficult for a doctor to come to the correct conclusion, isn't it?
Hence, they did "fail to diagnose or treat" Cpl Chua, but that is only clear on hindsight, not at that point in time.
Instead, i mentioned they chose to defend solely on this point.
Hence what they're saying is this: "Look, i couldn't have known the symptoms even if i tried. "
My question here is: How hard did they try? -
Because their parents wanted them to become doctors or they just wanted to make money. Same reason as our ministers and mps. Its only about the $$$$.Originally posted by pearlie27:Of course there is no criminal negligence, it is reckless disregard for human lives!
I wonder why those doctors take up medicine if they are not interested in treating people. They should have taken up psychology or psychiatry since they are so obsessed with what and how people think and behave. -
You can also make loads of $$ as lawyers.Originally posted by av98m:Because their parents wanted them to become doctors or they just wanted to make money. Same reason as our ministers and mps. Its only about the $$$$. -
Let me ask in return, how hard can they try?Originally posted by BillyBong:Indeed. I am not disputing that they may not have known or be in a position to properly diagonse CPL Chua.
Instead, i mentioned they chose to defend solely on this point.
Hence what they're saying is this: "Look, i couldn't have known the symptoms even if i tried. "
My question here is: How hard did they try?
The symptoms that the unfortunate deceased presented with were nothing that would point towards an infection. So why would and why should investigations and treatment be directed towards that? -
i dont think the doctor in this case is to be blamed.
the corporal is just unlucky. -
What did the autopsy reports say?
-
another case was reported again today.
a woman died after an operation to give a kidney to her husband.
the chance of such a happening is one in a few thousands. -
Another unlucky soul.Originally posted by dragg:another case was reported again today.
a woman died after an operation to give a kidney to her husband.
the chance of such a happening is one in a few thousands.
-
i may get flame for this, but I think the judge was right in giving the verdict against the family of the dead. If the family had won this case, I can assure u a whole lot new can of worms will be opened up. This will be a landmark case, as people who has relatives who die of the same circumstances or almost similar to the case will start suing the hospitals, creating unnecssary pressure on doctors/nurses. I mean, their job is already too stressful, and if add to the fact that 1 wrong dignosis may cause them 2 be sue, who would want 2 be in the medical profession anymorE?
-
Actually I sort of agree with what you have said. Though I believe a doctor or even just a health care worker, has a duty to look after their charge to the best of their ability. Even doctors are human they do make mistakes as well. What I want to know is if the doctor who treated the corporal had a preconcieved notion that he was maligering (not sure about the spelling sorry). If so it would have been wrong no?Originally posted by nanren4ever:i may get flame for this, but I think the judge was right in giving the verdict against the family of the dead. If the family had won this case, I can assure u a whole lot new can of worms will be opened up. This will be a landmark case, as people who has relatives who die of the same circumstances or almost similar to the case will start suing the hospitals, creating unnecssary pressure on doctors/nurses. I mean, their job is already too stressful, and if add to the fact that 1 wrong dignosis may cause them 2 be sue, who would want 2 be in the medical profession anymorE? -
another case mentioned today.
2 dialysis patients underwent kidney transplants operations but died. the donor's kidney was infected with dengue fever.
the court ruled misadventure.
they could have been alive, abeit sick with kidney problems. haiz... the transplant actually led to their demise.
how unfortunate!!! -
Wah, another super freak case.. Cos donor organs or blood aren't screened for dengue virus. Who would have imagined...Originally posted by dragg:another case mentioned today.
2 dialysis patients underwent kidney transplants operations but died. the donor's kidney was infected with dengue fever.
the court ruled misadventure.
they could have been alive, abeit sick with kidney problems. haiz... the transplant actually led to their demise.
how unfortunate!!!
Btw when did this incident happen?