3 ms·
I actually wanted to make an argument from the hospital's side of things: some of arguments the hospital's making sound heartless, but there's a very good chan
by maxlybbert 12y ago
I actually wanted to make an argument from the hospital's side of things: some of arguments the hospital's making sound heartless, but there's a very good chance that the hospital's insurance company came up with those arguments (well, the insurance company's lawyers).
It's hard to imagine a system more effective at upsetting people than the US legal system. There's a good chance that the family brought the doctor into the suit to get money from his insurance company. But they may not have had much choice. In the US, the court will spend a lot of time trying to decide if the right people were sued, and if people should be dropped or others added. I don't see how the doctor would have avoided getting sucked into the suit.
The lawyers will spend a lot of time negotiating behind the scenes. The family will try to get the judge to declare any liability "joint and several" which would allow the family to collect the full judgment (assuming there is one) from any of the parties, who then can work out the details among themselves.
The system encourages, and in some cases requires, this kind of manuevering. So don't assume the people involved are actually this weird, mean or heartless.
- justin66 12y agoThe doctor was complicit in doing something disgusting and, one hopes, illegal. Why wouldn't you name him in a lawsuit? classicsnoot mentions that the doctor "physically did everything he could to help their dead relative" but that very obviously didn't include helping to preserve his patient's dignity by keeping a camera crew away from him. What a nightmare. I'm still slightly in awe that a hospital would put their patients through this. That TV people would put someone through it is, of course, not shocking at all...
- maxlybbert 12y agoUntil I get further information, I will assume the doctor wasn't actively involved in the show's production. I'll assume that the hospital announced one or more camera crews would be in the emergency room, and the doctor assumed the people editing the footage knew the relevant laws and would act professionally. Even so, I don't see any way for the doctor to avoid being sued. But I really doubt he had much influence on the show.
- whyenot 12y agoThe doctor was wearing a mic. I think it would be very hard to argue he wasn't involved in the production. He also has at least a moral obligation to protect the privacy of his patients. It's a shame these things end in lawsuits, but he does deserve some kind of punishment or reprimand. Maybe suspend his license for a few months.
- maxlybbert 12y agoI have never been involved in a reality TV show (and my job isn't exciting enough for the TV crews to come knocking) so I have to only guess how it works. But I would expect that wearing a microphone doesn't give the doctor much input on which segments to use, and that the doctor wouldn't have been involved in getting permissions from the patients and families. It's obvious in this case that the show wasn't able to get permission from the family (and, given that the family was surprised; the show wasn't able to contact the family), so they blurred the guy's face and thought that made him unidentifiable. I don't believe the doctor had any influence on that decision.
- maxlybbert 12y agoI find it amusing that I got downvoted for stating the doctor probably had little creative input in the show.
- justin66 12y ago> I'll assume that the hospital announced one or more camera crews would be in the emergency room Okay, think about that. Just the thought of making critically injured people or their families deal with that (are they confronted by a release form? do they even get a choice, or do they have to go to a different ER if they want to receive treatment with some privacy? WTF?) is completely disgusting. The whole thing is trash that no medical professional should be involved in at all.
- maxlybbert 12y agoI can see how that could reflect poorly on the hospital, but it's less obvious to me that it reflects poorly on the doctors. Unless you expect the doctors to have refused to staff the emergency room until the camera crews left.
- classicsnoot 12y agoI have to wonder, have you not watched television lately? No intention of snark or derision, as i grew up w/o television. but if this seems like a heinous violation of privacy and/or dignity i shutter at the thought of your reaction to the internet. Most medical incidents are recorded, many of them in multiple different formats. Your use of the term "TV people" is rather informative. Then again, you 'software people' are typically pretty obtuse when it comes to subjects outside of your collective and therefore indistinguishable command.