A Medical dillema (Eye treatment for a terrorist)

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2006-02-06 06:48am

Fist of all this was a real life situation that happened to a friend of my parents who is a phd with a specialty in eye treatment.
On her day off she was asked to come to the hospital to help with a very difficult case:
A terrorist (Palestinian) who while laying bombs on a civilian highway had his bomb pack malfunction, hurting him badly.
He was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he was in danger of losing his eye-sight in both eyes, but if she (My parents friend- the phd) would help then there would be a good chance of him retaining the use in one eye. (Meaning that he would not be blinded).

She told us that her kids were against her going to treat the terrosit due to his actions, whilst I argued that while she was not obligated to go to work when off-duty, if she had been there than it would have been her "duty" to treat the terrorist due to "Hypocratis's oath".

So, what would you have done in the situation?
Keep in mind that the terrorist's life is not in a critical condition (But is in danger) but if you do not help then he will be blinded for life.

Personally, if I had been in the hospital then I would have been morally obliged to treat him, but I would not have come in on a day off to treat someone who was injured when trying to lay a bomb for innocent civilians on a highway.

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2006-02-06 06:57am

If I were a doctor then I would treat the hypothetical terrorist. If they have him in the hospital then he's obviously not going anywhere and will be standing trial for whatever it was he was doing. Should he take priority over other patients who are equally as bad off? Maybe not, but not treating him is not apart of any punishment any judge would hand out.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-02-06 08:41am

Physicians are expected to treat patients regardless of their political, social, or religious opinions of the person they're treating. It might be up to the state to stop the doctor from wasting time and resources on treating him, but if he's been brought in for treatment, he should recieve it.

BloodAngel · Post by **BloodAngel** » 2006-02-06 09:02am

The Hippocratic Oath pretty much tells doctors to treat everyone who needs treatment, and not to use the medical knowledge for the wrong purposes. Refusing treatment would, in this case, be a wrong use, despite the affiliation of the patient.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-06 01:58pm

What does it matter if you're not in the hospital that day? Someone else should be, unless it's criminally understaffed. Either way, someone needs to treat him to the best of their ability, provided it does not interfere with the treatment of more deserving patients. It is not the physician's place to enact punishments upon people by not trying as hard to save them. Even a terrorist deserves a fair trial before being sentenced.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2006-02-06 02:14pm

What does it matter if you're not in the hospital that day? Someone else should be, unless it's criminally understaffed.

The person I mentioned is the best eye doctor in the country, and the youngest to ever get a phd for her age.
the Terrorist was in bad shape and an expert was needed to save an eye at least, and she is one of the best in the business.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-02-06 07:50pm

DEATH wrote: The person I mentioned is the best eye doctor in the country, and the youngest to ever get a phd for her age.
the Terrorist was in bad shape and an expert was needed to save an eye at least, and she is one of the best in the business.

Then she should go in and treat the patient, regardless of his status as a terrorist. As for it being her day off, when a doctor is at the skill level that she is at, well you have to expect that you will be called in on your day off to treat a difficult case. She'll probably get paid overtime for it anyway.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-02-06 07:58pm

I, not being a doctor in real life, and operating on 'cold-hearted bitch' mode that comes with this time of month, said that if I was in the hospital, I'd do it, but not if it was my day off.

Unless I was OnCall anyway, which I never consider to be a true 'day off'.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-02-06 08:08pm

Treat him, even on her day off. He's going to be put in prison anyway right? So him getting his eyesight back will not be used to harm others in the future.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-06 08:43pm

Medical ethics in modern societies typically dictate that doctors provide equal treatment to all patients without passing moral or legal judgement upon them. Although this can, at times, be at odds with what a doctor may want on a personal level, long-term it serves the best interests of soceity at large if doctors stick to strictly medical judgements when providing care, particularly emergency care. There are circumstances that require a review of ethics, and that is most commonly done by referring the matter to a committee rather than leaving it to one doctor alone.

Yes, the terrorist should be treated without prejudice in this case. Judgement on his actions should occur after his conditions is stablized, and in a proper court of law, or else you're talking of barbarity and not civilization. Just because some people are human scum doesn't mean the doctors have to sink to their level - if the docs are better human beings, let them demonstrate it by their actions.

Once again, the test of ethics is whether or not you do the right thing when it's a difficult thing to do.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-02-06 09:17pm

Broomstick wrote:Yes, the terrorist should be treated without prejudice in this case. Judgement on his actions should occur after his conditions is stablized, and in a proper court of law, or else you're talking of barbarity and not civilization. Just because some people are human scum doesn't mean the doctors have to sink to their level - if the docs are better human beings, let them demonstrate it by their actions.

Once again, the test of ethics is whether or not you do the right thing when it's a difficult thing to do.

And who knows, perhaps this act of humanity and civility might change the hypothetical terrorist's worldview.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2006-02-06 09:33pm

The Hyppocratic Oath does not come with an on/off switch. Being on their day off of work does not release a doctor from said oath or from ensuring that their patient recieves the best medical treatment possible.

To put it into a different context*: if a design my company released and had constructed for a pipe line, lets say H2S service, turned out to be unsafe (unlikely given the amount of review we put into things but lets just run with it) and it was necessary for me to go in on my day off in order to fix the problem, not only would I be under a ethical obligation to do so, but it's my fucking job to do so. And I like my job, keeping it is a high priority, as such I would be going in on my day off.

*I'm not sure if this analogy is particularly apt but I think it illustrates my point.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2006-02-06 09:35pm

Quick edit: Not all doctors are required to actually take the Hyppocratic Oath anymore, but, IIRC, they do have a version of said oath written into the ethics code they are expected to adhere to. In some form or another.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-13 04:34pm

Treat him. I agree that doctors have a responsibility to treat anyone, no matter how they may personally feel about that person. We live in a country with the rule of law, people can only be rightly judged and punished in a court of law by a jury of their peers. Doctors do not have any more right to carry out vigilante punishshments on criminals acts than any of the rest of us. That is effectively what refusing treatment would be, a vigalente punishment with no legal basis.

Fleet Admiral JD · Post by **Fleet Admiral JD** » 2006-02-13 04:46pm

Can you tell us what your friend did in this situation?

I personally said only on my day in the hospital. I'm not making a special trip to help a terrorist.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-02-13 07:58pm

If I was there in the hospital, then I think that I have an obligation to do my job. If I was not in the hospital at the time, there is a high probability that I would not come in to help him specifically.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2006-02-14 03:48am

Fleet Admiral JD wrote:Can you tell us what your friend did in this situation?

I personally said only on my day in the hospital. I'm not making a special trip to help a terrorist.

Went in and treated the terrorist on her day off.
Not sure how effective it was and if the terrorist kept his eyesight in both eyes.

Coalition · Post by **Coalition** » 2006-02-18 02:56am

Treat him, and give him the biggest fattest bandage set you can, so he doesn't go any place. Keep him hopped up on drugs for the next week, so capturing him is easy.

Who knows, while on the drug trip he may talk about lots of things.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A Medical dillema (Eye treatment for a terrorist)

Would you treat him?

A Medical dillema (Eye treatment for a terrorist)