Rules v common-sense

I suspect you all get very fed up when I go on and on about Tom Reynolds' blog, but I think this post is pretty important; the question is simple - is it worth breaking the rules (and potentially violating certain ethical codes), in order to do your job they way you see fit?

As far as I can tell, Tom broke the rules. However, his primary function is to preserve life - if he had a hunch that the patient needed hospitalisation, then I think he did the right thing. Far better than finding out that the patient died afterwards...

Of course, one could argue that this is an even greater issue because of the increased likelihood of litigation in this day and age. Tom's next post, and the subsequent comments related to this, with this one providing a cautionary tale:

Re: Further Notes On Yesterday's Post
by AndrewKelly on Fri 13 Jul 2007 08:49 AM BST

We must also accept that this is the age of compensation. Yes, it is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to save someones life when they will die, even if you step on their toes slightly. However they may see the opportunity for a quick buck.

About a year ago I saw a middle-aged woman just collapse in the street with no pulse or breating. I have no clue on diagnosis so i started CPR (trained in such) and called an ambulance. Crew arrives, I give signs/symptoms/history and off they go.

A few months later I get a court summons, because she is sueing me for cracking her rib and inflicting "severe emotional damage" If I wasn't so flabbergasted and old-fashioned...i'd have hit her and given her a real reason to sue.

Thankfully the case collapsed and the woman looked a right prat, but the fact that someone who would have died, would even consider sueing her rescuer, has eroded my faith in humanity slightly.