Would you save?
-
No...Originally posted by Devil1976:Just a random question which comes to my mind....
Let's say and imagine you're a doctor.... You're escorting a patient somewhere.. You're following the standard protocol and everything's fine initially... Then suddenly the patient's condition turned for the worse and requires you to do something out of the protocol (something which might seriously land you into deep sh|t if anything goes wrong) in order to stand a CHANCE to save the patient's life.. You know that the patient would be a goner if you don't do anything like that, but there'll be much high risks involved if ya do. (plus, you cannot answer to it if you attempt that thing which might save patient's life)
So the question finally would be fairly simple...? Would you try to save the patient?
Edit: added explanation
A few situations:
1 - Assuming that there's no unforeseen circumstances, his condition turned worse. If unconventional method made him a dead person, it's just as bad.
2 - Assuming that he's unconscious, there's no way that I can gather his health info, followed protocol, but condition worsen... I'm still liable in some ways. But this doesn't mean I should make use of this chance to make up for this unforeseen circumstance. -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:Sgpork :
^tamago^ : Yes
why tamago follow ferret
my asnwer:yes... -
i might...
-
Originally posted by Devil1976:
Out of protocol techniques are not forbidden without reason. Would such a method "save" the person's life, but ultimately give him a fate worse than death for the next 40 years of his life? e.g make him a vegetable, mentally retarded, or loss of both arms and legs? Such things must be taken into consideration.
Just a random question which comes to my mind....
Let's say and imagine you're a doctor.... You're escorting a patient somewhere.. You're following the standard protocol and everything's fine initially... Then suddenly the patient's condition turned for the worse and requires you to do something out of the protocol (something which might seriously land you into deep sh|t if anything goes wrong) in order to stand a CHANCE to save the patient's life.. You know that the patient would be a goner if you don't do anything like that, but there'll be much high risks involved if ya do. (plus, you cannot answer to it if you attempt that thing which might save patient's life)
So the question finally would be fairly simple...? Would you try to save the patient? -
cos we know what u and allentyb wanna say.Originally posted by SGpork:
why tamago follow ferret
my asnwer:yes...
tell me.
are u his clone. -
nah...support orginal.Originally posted by Ferret:cos we know what u and allentyb wanna say.
tell me.
are u his clone. -
Yes. And be answerable for it.Originally posted by the.owl:but if u didnt do it, patient would have died anyways?
I'm not a doctor but I dont think theres some sort of a strict rule saying "you can only do this." Sure there are protocols but when its a life and death crisis I think the doctor should do what he thinks is right.
And that is where the dilemma and my question comes about....? -
Not me. In fact, i've not been watching much of TV shows lately...Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Who's been watching too much 'House M.D.'?
-
Your 2nd point, last line very cheem ley...?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:No...
Edit: added explanation
A few situations:
1 - Assuming that there's no unforeseen circumstances, his condition turned worse. If unconventional method made him a dead person, it's just as bad.
2 - Assuming that he's unconscious, there's no way that I can gather his health info, followed protocol, but condition worsen... I'm still liable in some ways. But this doesn't mean I should make use of this chance to make up for this unforeseen circumstance.
-
Given the fact that it's an emergency and you'll have no time to get such signature of approval... Would you save him?Originally posted by Skibi:Out of protocol techniques are not forbidden without reason. Would such a method "save" the person's life, but ultimately give him a fate worse than death for the next 40 years of his life? e.g make him a vegetable, mentally retarded, or loss of both arms and legs? Such things must be taken into consideration. -
there are two options:Originally posted by Devil1976:But there're laws among laws.. Some laws would obviously hit you 1st if you do...
If eventually the patient still die, you've not accomplished anything more but only land yourself in deep sh|t... Deserves it?
1) you do something but you fail
2) you dont do something and you just let the patient die
the patient has no chance of surviving if you dont do anything.
which is worse:
1) trying and failing
OR
2) not doing anything and letting the patient die, knowing that, PERHAPS, you could have saved his life? -
Yes lar save him lar ^^
U dun save him ltr reputation gone then might as well quit liao , save him his family tell friend , fwen tell family , family tell neighbour , neighbour tell dunno who lar , the dunno who post in sgForum , everybody noe ... By then u more famous than Jay Chou liao ...
Too exaggerated liao -
It's unforeseen becauseOriginally posted by Devil1976:Your 2nd point, last line very cheem ley...?
1. He's unconscious, so can't ask for health history
2. There's no one around me to tell his health history -
The question is, why not?Originally posted by Skibi:Out of protocol techniques are not forbidden without reason. Would such a method "save" the person's life, but ultimately give him a fate worse than death for the next 40 years of his life? e.g make him a vegetable, mentally retarded, or loss of both arms and legs? Such things must be taken into consideration.
They are out of protocol because it's too risky. Remember, once you decide to save a person, you have a duty of care.
If that person dies while you are treating him and using out of protocol methods, you are liable.
But if the saving is successful but leaves disastrous results, what will happen? Humans are fast at pointing fingers at others, but never themselves. If they don't attempt to save, families will be angered. If they attempt to save but resulted in disaster, they too will be angry.
Also, whether saving a person will work, will still depend on his will to live. Lots of methods that are guaranteed to work but risky nearly requires a person's will to be there. If the will isn't there, it's as good as nothing. -
..... And risk your whole life and career...?Originally posted by da-cheese-freakk:there are two options:
1) you do something but you fail
2) you dont do something and you just let the patient die
the patient has no chance of surviving if you dont do anything.
which is worse:
1) trying and failing
OR
2) not doing anything and letting the patient die, knowing that, PERHAPS, you could have saved his life? -
I think I know what you're trying to say already...Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:It's unforeseen because
1. He's unconscious, so can't ask for health history
2. There's no one around me to tell his health history
So basically it's still following the protocol and standard way yup...? -
Sad but true.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Humans are fast at pointing fingers at others, but never themselves. If they don't attempt to save, families will be angered. If they attempt to save but resulted in disaster, they too will be angry. -
i will try to save him at any cost.. even it results in unexpected death..
any try is a good try... better then dont try