Hypothetical: An 8-year-old girl is injured in a car accident by a negligent driver. She and her mother are devout Christian Scientists. Mother takes daughter to the hospital. Daughter gets superficial medical attention. Mother withdraws daughter from the hospital early, before surgeons have a chance to operate, and completely against medical advice. As a result, the daughter's injuries are aggravated.
Should the driver/hospital/doctors be liable for the girl's aggravated injuries and for the mother's added medical expenses because the injuries were aggravated?
Answer: My gut instinct is to say, look, if you're going to follow your "religious" beliefs and do stupid things like go against doctor's advice, you should bear the consequences. But why should the daughter bear the loss for the idiocy of her mother?
Even so, I'm not all that unsympathetic. It's like those anti-vaccine cases. If a parent refuses to get her kid vaccinated, and then the kid comes down with Whatever Disease, not only should the parent bear the kid's medical costs and not be able to sue the doctor, but I might even go so far as to make the parent liable for any medical expenses of kids who are infected by that infected kid who didn't get vaccinated.
Hypothetical 2: A Catholic couple decides they can no longer afford to have any more children. They go to the clinic to get a sterilization procedure. The doctor malpractices the woman and misperforms the sterilization. Woman becomes pregnant. Should the woman be required to mitigate her damages by either aborting (against her beliefs) or giving the kid up for adoption?
Answer: This question troubles me a lot more than the Christian Scientist example. And I don't think it's because Catholicism is a more widely held belief system. Perhaps it's because it has to do with abortion. It doesn't seem reasonable for anyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, to get a necessary operation, but to me it does seem reasonable for a person not to want to abort her kid or give her kid up for adoption once she has it. I mean, this is motherhood we're talking about here, even though the couple originally didn't want this baby.
My friend tried to convince me that this 2nd Hypothetical is just like the 1st in that you should suffer the consequences of following your beliefs in the medical context. But... I'm not so sure. Any thoughts?
[/XY comment]: I don't see how these two hypotheticals are equivalent. In the first case, the injuries are caused by a car accident. In the second case, there is malpractice. So I think it's fair to say in the second case the hospital and doctor is liable. They performed a procedure incorrectly. Am I missing something?
[/XX edit]: I'd meant that the girl was injured by a negligent driver. So, is the driver liable for only the girl's 'original' injuries, or also for her aggravated injuries?
No comments:
Post a Comment