Landmark medical negligence ruling orders SA hospitals to treat - not pay - victim

3WA said:
Sounds reasonable enough to me. Anyone who makes the sort of choices that leads to them using a state hospital shouldn't be entrusted with a lump sum and expected to look after themselves.
Click to expand...
You mean the choice of being born poor?
 
3WA said:
Well, for one, I don't think people who can't afford medical aid should be having children so there's that.
Click to expand...
Well then 80% of this country would stop having children then which would lead to societal collapse. Anyway that's enough of exploring your extreme views so will let it go.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 3WA
Crappy ruling. It completely absolves the state of any responsibility for neglect.

State already has an obligation in this clown country to provide the right to healthcare, which the patient would have a right to recieve with or without the ruling. So the patient gets nothing but the service they are already supposed to recieve.
 
RiaX said:
Good ruling. People do this shyte on purpose a lot to get a payday in both private and public sectors.

Unfortunate in this particular case but in the grand scheme of things it's good.

You won't believe what people try to sue for lol
Click to expand...

It is an absolutely horrible decision and probably one that will hopefully reversed by higher courts.
 
AlmightyBender said:
Well then 80% of this country would stop having children then which would lead to societal collapse. Anyway that's enough of exploring your extreme views so will let it go.
Click to expand...
Societal collapse caused by too many taxpayer dependents is going to happen. It is already happening in other countries.

In South Africa, a tiny proportion of people support about 50% of the population directly via grants. And probably more via nice cushy government jobs.

80% of people not having children would vastly improve the social conditions of the country. Especially if the 10% of people paying for everything would then have the money to have 3+ children.
 
The logic of the ruling:
Party A was driving in a negligent way and crashed into and crippled party B preventing them from ever driving again.

Judge rules that party A must do all the future driving for party B.

Or with mybb's favourite animal:
Party A admits their negligence with their Pitbull caused party B to have their legs torn off.

Judge rules that party B should be pulled around in a wheelchair by pitbull controlled by party A.
 
In oral hearings between April and September last year, the court heard expert opinion for the defendants that the awarding of lump sums was causing health departments to run up large contingent liabilities. And "unreasonable" negligence payouts meant public hospitals were struggling to provide services to other patients
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe there are warning signs that these people cannot provide adequate healthcare.
 
"Griffiths ordered that all the 11-year-old's future healthcare needs – from physiotherapy and surgeries to meetings with neurologists, be provided by the state your taxes, for free. " ftfy

PS - i'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but lets call it what it is.
 
Mystic Twilight said:
Technically it's the doctor and not the hospital that caused the problem so you can be treated by someone different, not that the state hospitals currently have consistently excellent doctors to choose from.
Click to expand...
The doctor in many instances is employed by the hospital / dept of health.
Vicarious liability applies.

Academic hospitals differ somewhat tho
 
rvZA said:
It is an absolutely horrible decision and probably one that will hopefully reversed by higher courts.
Click to expand...

Not really. It will stop doctors from practicing defensive medicine in order to prevent litigation.

It's gone so bad now that if you shot in the street a doctor will walk straight past you because they don't want to be sued.

Remember that the general public is to blame for this or rather lawyers looking for a payday

Edit:

One patient tried to sue my department because they forgot to take their meds claiming that our student didn't tell them how to take their meds. They wanted our student to "cover their costs". Note they've been taking these meds for over 10 years
 
Grant said:
It's becoming a problem.
There was a debate around this at the Steve Biko Bioethics Centre
Click to expand...

Yes. People think they know what's happening.

Wait until they get a spinal injury and no surgeon will want to take their case then they will understand.

Do you know how rare it is to find a orthopedic surgeon willing to operate around the neck area.

They give you some pain meds and say "sorry can't help you"

Even myself. I was at a restaurant and a guy had a epileptic fit. The doctors and medical staff did not move a muscle we let the general public handle it and touch and put into recovery position. Can't sue a lay person but us medical staff can be sued. Always wait for emrs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X