香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
« 上一篇 | 下一篇 »
星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006, 00:30 AM | 老爸入院記

平均分: 10.00 | 評分人數: 3

To: 星屑醫生 

香港註冊醫生專業守則 

第 III 部 分

E. 同 業 關 係

19.3 任 何 無 理 和 欠 缺 根 據 的 批 評 , 包 括 直 接 或 暗 示 的 表 達 , 以 致 損 害 他 人 對 某 同 業 的 專 業 水 平 或 技 術 的 信 任 , 均 屬 不 道 德 和 不 能 接 受 的 。

-- We all know who you are

親愛的朋友we all know who you are 你好.

I don't know who you are. 但是, 在接受了很多朋友的祝福和鼓勵之後, 突然出現了這樣的留言. 一時間, 真的很難決定我應該回覆一個怎樣的反應才好. 思前想後, 還是覺得主要表現得很「驚慌」會比較適合.

在這社會裡, 會怎樣思想的人都有. 對於不同的思想, 我們都常常說, 要學習互相尊重和理解, 即使乍看之下, 某些言論或意見在一時間真的讓人覺得難以理解.
我常常說不要罵戰. 要討論, 就最好各自陳述論點加以解釋, 千萬要避免人身攻擊.

我的論點早已在7篇裡表達清楚, 現在我要說的, 是我方論點的主要基礎:

主角是我的父親, 我唯一的父親. 他只差一點就會死, 那將是一個無可挽回的結果, 並且將會對我的家庭以及我的人生帶來毀滅性的後果.

就以上專業守則裡的條文, 明白人都會認同:
1. 任 何 無 理 和 欠 缺 根 據 的 批 評:

我作的指控並非無理而缺乏根據, 相反, 更是合理極, 鐵證如山及證據確鑿. 而且更得到急症室高級醫生, 放射科醫生, 外科醫生在言語上, 特別是行動上的認同.

2. 以致損害他人對某同業的專業水平或技術的信任:

文中從沒出現任何一位醫護人員的名字, 連暗示也從來沒有. 我主要是要針對那醫院的急症室, 而不是單單某個同業. 而且我告訴你, 現在你問我, 那個急症室醫生叫甚麼名字, 我根本就說不出來, 自己亦沒有記下來. 我想, 要直到當我開始投訴程序, 有關當局開始調查才會把他的名字查出來吧.
現在我把整件事, 以個人日誌的形式披露出來, 就如何「損害」「某同業」了? 就是讓他看了然後覺得良心不安, 這就好算作損害了? 而「某同業」究竟是誰也沒有人知道, 連我自己也不知道.

3. 在私, 我父親經歷生關死劫. 在公, 我覺得我有責任幫助維護社會公義, 很多人讀完文章都表示捏一把冷汗, 因為假若事情發生在自己身上, 所享有的保障實在太過有限. 所以我想出聲為要叫公營醫療能夠進步. 假如給欺壓得真是太過份了, 我無論如何還是會出聲求救和提出指責, 即使那會給人指控為「不道德」或「不能接受」!

那就讓我這樣子「不道德」好了!!! 

We all know who you are. 再一次向你問好. 如果你不介意, 我且猜猜你的身份吧.

可能1. 你是醫護人員
可能2. 你一向很憎我, 我們有私仇
可能3. 你是不相干的人

如果你是1. 對不起, 我無法不覺得心寒. 問一問自己, 公義的重要性何在? 人家說, 「錯就要認, 打就企定」. 在這事上, 我老爸和我始終是苦主, 為了維護己方的利益與尊嚴, 指責苦主「不道德」和「不能接受」. 對不起, 我對這樣的人和事無法不覺得心寒, 尤其假如你是醫護人員.

如果你是2. 我可以理解你的行為, 但其實我想來想去想不出誰就曾和我有過深仇大恨, 以至於在我老爸面對生死問題之時, 還會提出這種問題來搞局.

如果你是3. 不打緊, 你有發表意見的權利, 也多謝你的留言, 雖然我會暗暗把你歸作維園阿伯(或巴士阿叔) 一類.

最後我要指出: We all know who you are「我們都知道你是誰」這名字真是起得好, 那種淡淡然中帶出的威嚇真是恰到好處. 也實在引發我的好奇, 究竟現在你們都知道我是誰了, 會對我的投訴行動採取甚麼相應的行動呢? 莫非想向我的老爸狠施橫手!?
我想, 表現得很"驚慌" 才是對你(們)合乎禮貌的回應吧.


[61] Steroids Zootool

bodybuilding studies level trophy michael position frequency

Steroids Scrapbook | Steroids Scrabook Blog | Anabolic Steroids for Sale | RoidsMall Stik

solved weights steroid equipment america synthol take meal


[引用] | 作者 Steroids Zootool | 18th Feb 2012 02:38 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[60] Re:
elly :
醫生:其實你都只係以病人家屬嘅身份去表達和發洩自己嘅情緒,又不是刻意抵毁/挑戰其他同行而令自己得益,唔通身為醫生嘅身份就唔可以用病人家屬嘅身份去表達不滿?我醫院常常都有HA同事的家人入院啦,他們有些都會批評/挑戰我哋嘅醫生啦!咁又點計?況且既然自己有相關嘅知識,用以保護自己和家人也不為過,始終星屑醫生都沒有指名道姓話邊位丫!我覺得咁樣已經好厚道啦。又或者點解唔用另一個角度去睇呢,星屑醫生只是指出不足/不完善的地方,希望其後輩/在其位者可以改善,並且令到其後接受服務的市民得到更良好嘅服務呢?並不是每一個受服務嘅市民都有醫療知識,而且經一事,長一智,對那醫院的同事都有好處,至少讓他們明白到不是"讀死書",讓他們日後更加小心、警惕。而且點解一定要用一個壞嘅角度去睇"衰"人呢??醫生,我支持你,唔使理佢!

從頭看了一篇, 發覺漏了多謝elly. Elly, 很多謝你, 你是同行, 你對我的鼓勵我銘記於心.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 5th Jun 2006 12:09 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[59] Re:
KY :
星屑醫生 :對不起, 我第一次刪留言了.很多謝署名doctor的朋友留言, 但是我思前想後, 還是覺得登出了某部門主管的名字和所屬醫院名稱有點不妥. 一來, 我從來沒有指名道姓針對過誰, 也不希望人人知道那究竟是那一間醫院. 始終這裡是用來分享和發洩的地方, 不算正式投訴的渠道. 缺席審判對被告也是不公平. 二來,我也怕無端惹禍上身, 給人抓著話柄, 就苦主慘變被告了. 你知道這世途是多麼險惡.老實說, 我自己應該向誰投訴我當然心裡有數, (要是連報門主管都不知道, 怎樣搵工? 因為求職信是寄給他的). 而且即使是一般市民, 上醫管局網頁也會得到資料. 就算不識字, 大概也大可找個議員幫忙.所以你的好意我心領, 但不要怪我刪留言了. 就當我不懂事吧.多謝你這麼詳細介紹了那醫院給大家, 還介紹一本好書我們參考. 我想我能自己在醫院的網頁裡找到部門主管的名稱呢~! 幸好你不是只說xx醫院~

哦, 不客氣. 不過整件事其實和那部門主管沒有特別關係. 當然之後我會去信給他反映事件, 特別要著重的是改善急症室流程, 和醫生責任制度.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 2nd Jun 2006 16:16 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[58]
星屑醫生 :
對不起, 我第一次刪留言了.
很多謝署名doctor的朋友留言, 但是我思前想後, 還是覺得登出了某部門主管的名字和所屬醫院名稱有點不妥. 一來, 我從來沒有指名道姓針對過誰, 也不希望人人知道那究竟是那一間醫院. 始終這裡是用來分享和發洩的地方, 不算正式投訴的渠道. 缺席審判對被告也是不公平. 二來,我也怕無端惹禍上身, 給人抓著話柄, 就苦主慘變被告了. 你知道這世途是多麼險惡.
老實說, 我自己應該向誰投訴我當然心裡有數, (要是連報門主管都不知道, 怎樣搵工? 因為求職信是寄給他的). 而且即使是一般市民, 上醫管局網頁也會得到資料. 就算不識字, 大概也大可找個議員幫忙.
所以你的好意我心領, 但不要怪我刪留言了. 就當我不懂事吧.

多謝你這麼詳細介紹了那醫院給大家, 還介紹一本好書我們參考. 我想我能自己在醫院的網頁裡找到部門主管的名稱呢~! 幸好你不是只說xx醫院~


[引用] | 作者 KY | 2nd Jun 2006 14:00 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[57] Re:
路人乙歐巴桑 :
首先恭喜世伯的病情已經穩定, 祝他快快康復、日日有食神^^有時壞心腸的歐巴桑會暗暗「祝福」某些「影衰」醫護界同業的害群之馬小病入院, 感受一下作為病人、病人家屬的感受不過也當然希望普羅大眾都會相信絕大部分醫護界同業都是認真地工作著的那些無聊的留言不要太上心啦, 無謂浪費時間跟他們linger囉We don't care who they are^+++^

很喜歡你這句we dont care who they are! 更喜歡你祝他日日有食神呢! 多光臨!


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 2nd Jun 2006 09:06 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[56]

首先恭喜世伯的病情已經穩定, 祝他快快康復、日日有食神^^
有時壞心腸的歐巴桑會暗暗「祝福」某些「影衰」醫護界同業的害群之馬小病入院, 感受一下作為病人、病人家屬的感受
不過也當然希望普羅大眾都會相信絕大部分醫護界同業都是認真地工作著的
那些無聊的留言不要太上心啦, 無謂浪費時間跟他們linger囉
We don't care who they are^+++^


[引用] | 作者 路人乙歐巴桑 | 1st Jun 2006 23:25 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[55] Re:
misstaipo :
醫生呀,公道自在人心。

多謝你撐!


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 1st Jun 2006 09:31 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[54]

醫生呀,公道自在人心。


[引用] | 作者 misstaipo | 1st Jun 2006 02:09 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[53] Re:
路人甲 :
星屑醫生 :
先在此向您道歉, 沒有得到您的同意下, 轉載了您的文章到香港討論區。
我是無意中看到您的blog, 事源我在google search 打上 "血含氧量低"搜到您的文章, 因我的家人入了醫院, 上星期六, 血含氧量跌到 84, 但唔知代表乜意思, 所以上網查資料。
我的家人用了貓鬚, 情況似乎穩定下來, 但依然有d呼吸不順, 但今天血含氧又跌落八十幾, 其實我家人(八十五歲)情況係咪好 worse ? 會否有生命危險?
願上帝保佑所有羔羊!路人甲

不客氣, 別的不說, 這7篇我是無任歡迎的, 因為也希望得到多些人關注.

我有上去看過. 他們對這事很關心. 對我的支持我十分感激.

你的問題不是3言2語答得好. 有時動脈血反映得比較準確. 因為手指含氧量受很多因素影響.

也為你家人祈禱, 在入院的時候, 心中的平安比一切更重要.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 1st Jun 2006 00:19 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[52]

星屑醫生 :

先在此向您道歉, 沒有得到您的同意下, 轉載了您的文章到香港討論區。

我是無意中看到您的blog, 事源我在google search 打上 "血含氧量低"搜到您的文章, 因我的家人入了醫院, 上星期六, 血含氧量跌到 84, 但唔知代表乜意思, 所以上網查資料。

我的家人用了貓鬚, 情況似乎穩定下來, 但依然有d呼吸不順, 但今天血含氧又跌落八十幾, 其實我家人(八十五歲)情況係咪好 worse ? 會否有生命危險?

願上帝保佑所有羔羊!
路人甲


[引用] | 作者 路人甲 | 31st May 2006 17:50 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[51] 白色恐怖,不用理會~!

因工作上接觸的關係,接觸了很多和公立醫院服務有關的事情,亦知道你所言非虛。

所以,雖然第一次看你的BLOG,但卻感到很認同。

對於那個"WE KNOW....YOU ARE"的東西,純粹是散播白色恐怖,可以不用理會。

我亦是專業人事,相信專業人士應該時刻看清楚他人所提及的事實和意見,並不斷反省自己應否有改進和「精益求精」的空間及機會。而不是事無大小就拋出《專業守則》來作攻訐他人或自保的武器。


[引用] | 作者 hippo | 31st May 2006 12:00 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[50] Re:
Samu :
星屑醫生, 撐你~~!
We all know who WE are!

多謝你. 唉, 其實鬥爭還很漫長...


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 31st May 2006 09:30 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[49] Re: Re: glad that your dad is fine now
Game Girl :
ice :first of all, glad that your dad is fine and physically stable now. i am really shocked of what happened to your family, especially to your dad. how could an ordinary person knows what go wrong in this case? i really glad that you are a doc and can take care of your dad in emergency.on the other hand, your story really really frigthened me because i've got CIN stage 1 and i am thinking of referring my case to the public hospital. i have tried so hard to get as much as information by myself but i still could not know what the process of the operation would be handled had i sent my case to them.it frustrated me because they act like some kind of secret club and everyone just told me that i would get a meeting with a consultant once i refer it. no one can answer me how long on average i have to wait for the operation, even my private doc could not tell. there is no general consultants or anyone in the hospital would tell you the general procedure. their manner is like "do it or leave it."my boyfriend once asked me if i have confident in the public hospital system here as he also knows that there are staff shortage. at that time i say "yes". after going through all this exhausting information search and reading your story, i really feel like confusing.but anyway, i am still glad that i have read your story which told me that the public hospital system is much more worse that i thought of.

如果醫生同你講是CIN Stage 1的話,手術就很簡單,在日間手術中心就可以進行,因為你不需要進行全身麻醉。不過,你都是盡快做比較好,但你的家庭應該會同你講個手術內容係乜。再者,醫院那邊應該有醫生可以答你,其實你是有權問的。

Game girl 是我的師姐, 現在你先放心進行手術吧.

你看, 公立醫院其實有料之人和有心之人還是很多的. 這也是我送老爸進去的原因. 只可惜我們這次太不好彩.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 31st May 2006 09:10 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[48] Re:
港燦 :
關於 code of ethics 中 " 任 何 無 理 和 欠 缺 根 據 的 批 評 ".
睇左咁多 part,在為外行人,一直覺得星屑醫生提出的各項質疑都是以他自己所受的專業訓練和所學的知識衡量過後,有根有據講出。也認為星屑醫生於評估佢爸爸病情時,一直表現冷靜。
如果星屑醫生一路提出的質疑也屬無理 / 欠缺根據,以後我等非現職醫生的家屬有事入醫院,若對醫護處理手法提出任何質疑就更難成立 ! 那麼醫生們為何要負擔高昂的責任保險費 ?

多謝港燦. 我就是覺得, 有權知和提出疑問根本是很基本的. 可是我們卻要fight for 先會得到. 香港就是這樣.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 31st May 2006 09:08 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[47]

星屑醫生, 撐你~~!

We all know who WE are!


[引用] | 作者 Samu | 31st May 2006 04:11 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[46] Re: glad that your dad is fine now
ice :
first of all, glad that your dad is fine and physically stable now. i am really shocked of what happened to your family, especially to your dad. how could an ordinary person knows what go wrong in this case? i really glad that you are a doc and can take care of your dad in emergency.
on the other hand, your story really really frigthened me because i've got CIN stage 1 and i am thinking of referring my case to the public hospital. i have tried so hard to get as much as information by myself but i still could not know what the process of the operation would be handled had i sent my case to them.it frustrated me because they act like some kind of secret club and everyone just told me that i would get a meeting with a consultant once i refer it. no one can answer me how long on average i have to wait for the operation, even my private doc could not tell. there is no general consultants or anyone in the hospital would tell you the general procedure. their manner is like "do it or leave it."
my boyfriend once asked me if i have confident in the public hospital system here as he also knows that there are staff shortage. at that time i say "yes". after going through all this exhausting information search and reading your story, i really feel like confusing.
but anyway, i am still glad that i have read your story which told me that the public hospital system is much more worse that i thought of.

如果醫生同你講是CIN Stage 1的話,手術就很簡單,在日間手術中心就可以進行,因為你不需要進行全身麻醉。不過,你都是盡快做比較好,但你的家庭應該會同你講個手術內容係乜。再者,醫院那邊應該有醫生可以答你,其實你是有權問的。


[引用] | 作者 Game Girl | 30th May 2006 23:55 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[45]

關於 code of ethics 中 " 任 何 無 理 和 欠 缺 根 據 的 批 評 ".

睇左咁多 part,在為外行人,一直覺得星屑醫生提出的各項質疑都是以他自己所受的專業訓練和所學的知識衡量過後,有根有據講出。也認為星屑醫生於評估佢爸爸病情時,一直表現冷靜。

如果星屑醫生一路提出的質疑也屬無理 / 欠缺根據,以後我等非現職醫生的家屬有事入醫院,若對醫護處理手法提出任何質疑就更難成立 ! 那麼醫生們為何要負擔高昂的責任保險費 ?


[引用] | 作者 港燦 | 30th May 2006 21:34 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[44] glad that your dad is fine now

first of all, glad that your dad is fine and physically stable now. i am really shocked of what happened to your family, especially to your dad. how could an ordinary person knows what go wrong in this case? i really glad that you are a doc and can take care of your dad in emergency.

on the other hand, your story really really frigthened me because i've got CIN stage 1 and i am thinking of referring my case to the public hospital. i have tried so hard to get as much as information by myself but i still could not know what the process of the operation would be handled had i sent my case to them.
it frustrated me because they act like some kind of secret club and everyone just told me that i would get a meeting with a consultant once i refer it. no one can answer me how long on average i have to wait for the operation, even my private doc could not tell. there is no general consultants or anyone in the hospital would tell you the general procedure. their manner is like "do it or leave it."

my boyfriend once asked me if i have confident in the public hospital system here as he also knows that there are staff shortage. at that time i say "yes". after going through all this exhausting information search and reading your story, i really feel like confusing.

but anyway, i am still glad that i have read your story which told me that the public hospital system is much more worse that i thought of.


[引用] | 作者 ice | 30th May 2006 21:02 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[43] Re:
路人甲 :
星屑醫生,
高興見到你老爸沒事, 真慶幸你老爸有你這一出色又孝順的兒子。
醫務委員會係好難纏, 但看畢前文後理, 我認為你絕對沒有問題, 你大可不必理會小人之言詞。加油努力!
身為基督徒的你, 必須對不公義之事出聲, 請將有問題的事, 投訴至有關部門, 好讓其他市民能安心到公立醫院看病。
                              路人甲

多謝你, 也太誇獎我, 但是很認同你最後那一句, 為的是希望社會進步, 人人安居樂業, 才能找得到幸福.

我祝你幸福, 在我心中你不是一般的路人甲呢.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 30th May 2006 14:00 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[42]

星屑醫生,

高興見到你老爸沒事, 真慶幸你老爸有你這一出色又孝順的兒子。

醫務委員會係好難纏, 但看畢前文後理, 我認為你絕對沒有問題, 你大可不必理會小人之言詞。加油努力!emoticon

身為基督徒的你, 必須對不公義之事出聲, 請將有問題的事, 投訴至有關部門, 好讓其他市民能安心到公立醫院看病。

                              路人甲


[引用] | 作者 路人甲 | 30th May 2006 13:29 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[41]

草飛, 雲上看, Magic,

很多謝你們都說撐我, 全靠你們的熱心鼓勵, 我才得度過難關.

爸爸今天吃得了粥. 之前他都要吃粥水. 前幾日他開始覺嘴饞, 見對面床病人吃飯吃菜, 就眼巴巴看著別人吃, 然後好像很可憐的看著自己的粥水. 我笑他, 也鼓勵他說等多一點點時間就可以回復正常的了.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 30th May 2006 09:29 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[40]

我都認同你話
如果 we先生/小姐 係醫護人員的話
好"心寒"
所以,
1. 我希望佢唔係醫護人員 or 所有服務工作o既人
2.假如咁不幸佢係醫護人員 , 希望經佢手既病人都可以平平安安

唉...不得不嘆口氣
we all know who you are, 你know 唔know 咩叫"公平"?

星屑~撐你!!


[引用] | 作者 magic | 29th May 2006 23:29 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[39]

星屑醫生:

在下是貴 blog 的長期隱形訪客, 今次也忍不住要現形了.雖然我不是醫生, 甚麼也不懂, 但我只想說一句: 公道自在人心, 繼續努力!

希望大家在享用自己的言論自由的同時, 也會尊重別人的言論自由.


[引用] | 作者 雲上看 | 29th May 2006 23:18 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[38]

很明白你的心情,支持你!
那人只是個署名都很有恐嚇的意味了!要不要先報警備案啊?!


[引用] | 作者 草飛 | 29th May 2006 21:35 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[37] Re:
金婆婆 :
星屑醫生, 支持你!

多謝婆婆, 你老人家這麼有江湖地位, 我的感覺如有靠山. 哈.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 29th May 2006 18:11 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[36]

星屑醫生, 支持你! emoticon


[引用] | 作者 金婆婆 | 29th May 2006 18:02 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[35] Re:
taoming :
We all know who you are, so what?(˚ Д ˚)
世界上有太多這類人!╮(﹀_﹀")╭
開放留言權限後,就會有這毛病發生( ̄皿 ̄;)
祝世伯早日康復!
P.S.很抱歉!不能時常在此留言支持你!但看星屑醫生的Blog 亦已成為我生命中不可缺少的一部分,所以在此繼續撐你!(^ ▽ ^)

不要這樣說, 道明, 無論是默默祝福還是打氣聲援, 我都收到, 並且銘記於心. 多謝.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 29th May 2006 15:52 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[34]

We all know who you are, so what?(˚ Д ˚)

世界上有太多這類人!╮(﹀_﹀")╭

開放留言權限後,就會有這毛病發生( ̄皿 ̄;)

祝世伯早日康復!

P.S.很抱歉!不能時常在此留言支持你!但看星屑醫生的Blog 亦已成為我生命中不可缺少的一部分,所以在此繼續撐你!
(^ ▽ ^)


[引用] | 作者 taoming | 29th May 2006 15:37 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[33] Re:
靚媽 :
我們一眾博友都是本着關懷的心情給予星屑一點點微不足道的支持而已﹗對醫療服務的不滿與批評都是本着關心病人的福祉為前題﹗並不是要針對個別的醫生或護理人員﹐只要星屑爸沒事的話﹐相信星屑都不想把事情鬧大啊﹗星屑﹗我這樣說對嗎﹖﹗若有說錯的話﹐你刪了我的留言吧﹗我是絕對明白的﹗

靚媽, 你們的支持絕不是微不足道的. 絕不是.
這幾天得你和各人的關心和鼓舞, 我才能度過黑暗的數天.
我愛你們眾博友.
(骨痺也是這樣說)


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 29th May 2006 10:24 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[32]

對不起, 我第一次刪留言了.

很多謝署名doctor的朋友留言, 但是我思前想後, 還是覺得登出了某部門主管的名字和所屬醫院名稱有點不妥. 一來, 我從來沒有指名道姓針對過誰, 也不希望人人知道那究竟是那一間醫院. 始終這裡是用來分享和發洩的地方, 不算正式投訴的渠道. 缺席審判對被告也是不公平. 二來,我也怕無端惹禍上身, 給人抓著話柄, 就苦主慘變被告了. 你知道這世途是多麼險惡.

老實說, 我自己應該向誰投訴我當然心裡有數, (要是連報門主管都不知道, 怎樣搵工? 因為求職信是寄給他的). 而且即使是一般市民, 上醫管局網頁也會得到資料. 就算不識字, 大概也大可找個議員幫忙.

所以你的好意我心領, 但不要怪我刪留言了. 就當我不懂事吧.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 29th May 2006 10:18 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[31]

星屑已經是醫生啦﹗不是一個三歲孩子﹗他知道應該或不應該做什麼﹗不需要別人教他怎樣做;我不知那個自稱Dr.嘅人是何居心﹐藏頭露尾的公開別人的資料﹐我覺得除非是他的本人﹐若然不是的話﹐就有好大的問題啦﹗

我們一眾博友都是本着關懷的心情給予星屑一點點微不足道的支持而已﹗對醫療服務的不滿與批評都是本着關心病人的福祉為前題﹗並不是要針對個別的醫生或護理人員﹐只要星屑爸沒事的話﹐相信星屑都不想把事情鬧大啊﹗星屑﹗我這樣說對嗎﹖﹗若有說錯的話﹐你刪了我的留言吧﹗我是絕對明白的﹗

p︰我也不是代表星屑說話﹐只是八啩看不過眼才多手打兩隻字說說我的感受和看法而已﹗


[引用] | 作者 靚媽 | 29th May 2006 06:40 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[30]

一口氣讀了之前的七篇,絕對認同"靚媽"在這篇的留言。
為你送上支持外,亦祝世伯早日康服回家,相信Fifteen都等左好耐。


[引用] | 作者 瑩瑩 | 29th May 2006 01:03 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[29]

星屑醫生, 每天都會來看看你的日記, 我不是醫生, 但我跟你一樣的就是我和你都有爸. 我和你都這樣愛你的爸.

我不懂什麼法律,什麼醫學, 只知道在你爸生死關頭,做兒子的不能見死不救.

還是這一句,

[公道自在人心]

加油!emoticon


[引用] | 作者 小柔 | 29th May 2006 00:00 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[28]

醫生:
其實你都只係以病人家屬嘅身份去表達和發洩自己嘅情緒,又不是刻意抵毁/挑戰其他同行而令自己得益,唔通身為醫生嘅身份就唔可以用病人家屬嘅身份去表達不滿?我醫院常常都有HA同事的家人入院啦,他們有些都會批評/挑戰我哋嘅醫生啦!咁又點計?況且既然自己有相關嘅知識,用以保護自己和家人也不為過,始終星屑醫生都沒有指名道姓話邊位丫!我覺得咁樣已經好厚道啦。
又或者點解唔用另一個角度去睇呢,星屑醫生只是指出不足/不完善的地方,希望其後輩/在其位者可以改善,並且令到其後接受服務的市民得到更良好嘅服務呢?並不是每一個受服務嘅市民都有醫療知識,而且經一事,長一智,對那醫院的同事都有好處,至少讓他們明白到不是"讀死書",讓他們日後更加小心、警惕。而且點解一定要用一個壞嘅角度去睇"衰"人呢??
醫生,我支持你,唔使理佢!


[引用] | 作者 elly | 28th May 2006 23:59 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[27]

星屑, 只管好好照顧家人吧, 世上仍有公義的, 在暗裡說話的只越發顯出他們的心虛...


[引用] | 作者 Arale | 28th May 2006 21:43 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[26]

"公道自在人心"

we all support you


[引用] | 作者 breeze | 28th May 2006 18:48 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[25] Re:
Anthony :
哈哈,我都已離開了公立醫院的行列。現在是GP一名,不再是什麽specialist trainee 了。因診所位置不太好,又新又無醫療集團「照住」,病人不多。但總算是自己的診所,可以做自己認為對的事,不用處處受那些生意人制肘。祝願世伯早曰康復!

我和你一模樣, 我們要多聯絡.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006 16:00 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[24] Re:
東邪黃藥師 :
星屑,有咩吾妥,同我傾。

先多謝你. 你們對我如此好, 我銘記在心.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006 15:59 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[23]

星屑,有咩吾妥,同我傾。


[引用] | 作者 東邪黃藥師 | 28th May 2006 15:38 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[22]

哈哈,我都已離開了公立醫院的行列。
現在是GP一名,不再是什麽specialist trainee 了。
因診所位置不太好,又新又無醫療集團「照住」,病人不多。
但總算是自己的診所,可以做自己認為對的事,不用處處受那些生意人制肘。
祝願世伯早曰康復!


[引用] | 作者 Anthony | 28th May 2006 15:36 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[21] 批評其它醫生前請細讀

Bolam Test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
English Tort law
Part of the common law series
Negligence
Duty of care
Standard of care
Bolam Test
Breach of duty
Causation
Breaking the chain
Acts of the claimant
Remoteness
Professional negligence
Loss of chance
Loss of right
Res ipsa loquitur
Eggshell skull
Defences to negligence
Trespass to property
Defamation
Strict liability
Vicarious liability
Rylands v. Fletcher
Nuisance
Other areas of the common law
Contract law · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law · Evidence
In the English law of tort, the Bolam test is one of the rules used to determine the issue of professional negligence where the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. In essence this test expects standards which must be in accordance with a responsible body of opinion, even if others differ in opinion.

Contents [hide]
1 Explanation
2 The principles
2.1 A sample of cases
3 Misfeasance
4 Conclusions
5 References

[edit]
Explanation
The test is derived from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 583. The usual rules to establish negligence rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. The Bolam test determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise. For general purposes, the objective standard of care cannot come down, but it can be raised where the individual defendant has expressly or impliedly represented skills and abilities in excess of the ordinary person. The test does not vary significantly in professional negligence litigation, but it causes greater difficulty for the courts in medical negligence than in claims against, say, a lawyer or an accountant, because of the technical issues involved. The problem is as follows:

The award of damages in the civil law is intended to compensate the claimant for the loss and damage caused by the relevant defendant.
A person seeks the assistance of a medical practitioner because of an inherent condition which may be physical, psychological, or contain elements of both, e.g. a person may be admitted to hospital with traumatic compression injuries resulting from an industrial or road traffic accident, and exhibit symptoms of shock.
At this point, the patient may already have a cause of action against an employer for failing to properly fence the machine that caused the injuries, or against the driver of a vehicle. If so, that potential defendant will be liable to pay damages for all the injuries caused and the consequential losses.
But suppose that the claimant receives negligent treatment in the hospital. In theory, a second cause of action arises against the medical practitioners and their employers (see vicarious liability). But the issue of causation is problematic. The court must be able to distinguish between any loss and damage flowing from the two causes.
Damages for the first cause must be valued by assessing what hypothetically perfect treatment would have achieved. This may be a complete recovery at some time in the future, or residual permanent disability represented by a percentage loss of movement in joints, etc.
In the second action, the court must find that the negligent treatment actually caused a different outcome which is measurably more severe than the first hypothetical outcome. Thus, if the only consequence to the negligent treatment was delay in the recovery time and the outcome ultimately delivered matches the hypothetical perfect outcome, the measure of damages will be limited to the additional pain and suffering, and additional loss of earnings.
Now substitute a heart attack for the accident. The patient is not entitled to any compensation for injuries arising naturally, but only for those injuries directly attributable to the negligent treatment. The post mortem shows that the patient was going to die no matter what the medical practitioner did but, in this instance, the negligence probably accelerated the inevitable death.
All these legal issues can only be addressed by medical opinion because, by its nature, medical practice has not reached the stage of scientific reliability where such questions can be answered with certainty. In a dispute about a will, for example, it might be alleged that because a solicitor delayed implementing a change to an existing bequest, an intended beneficiary was denied the expected outcome when the testator unexpectedly died. Here, efficient action by the solicitor changes the will and matches everyone's expectations. The difference between a quantified bequest and no bequest is easy to measure. But it has been difficult for the law to achieve any real degree of consistency in the medical field because assessing whether the standard of care has been met and issues of causation depend to such a marked degree on the opinions of the medical profession itself.

For these purposes, the evidence produced by the claimant must satisfy the burden of proof which, in a civil case, is the balance of probabilities. Hence, the burden is satisfied and negligence is proved if there is greater than 50% chance that the claim as argued is correct, i.e. the duty was owed and the breach caused the injury. So the question of law is based on assessing the medical chances of recovery. If given proper treatment, the claimant's chances of avoiding the current level of injury were anything less than 50%, he or she will not be awarded any damages at all. There is no right to damages for the loss of the prospect of recovery if the chance of that recovery was less than probable.

[edit]
The principles
The law distinguishes between liability flowing from acts and omissions, and liability flowing from misstatements. The Bolam principle addresses the first element and may be formulated as a rule that a doctor, nurse or other health professional is not negligent if he or she acts in accordance with a practice accepted at the time as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even though some other practitioners adopt a different practice. In addition, Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd. (1964) AC 465 created the rule of "reasonable reliance" by the claimant on the professional judgment of the defendant.

"Where a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgment or his skill or upon his ability to make careful inquiry, and a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be passed on to, another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then a duty of care will arise."
Because of the nature of the relationship between a medical practitioner and a patient, it is reasonable for the patient to rely on the advice given by the practitioner. Thus, Bolam applies to all the acts and omissions constituting diagnosis and consequential treatment, and Hedley Byrne applies to all advisory activities involving the communication of diagnosis and prognosis, giving of advice on both therapeutic and non-therapeutic options for treatment, and disclosure of relevant information to obtain informed consent.

[edit]
A sample of cases
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1968) 1 AER 1068. Three men attended at the emergency department but the casualty officer, who was himself unwell, did not see them, advising that they should go home and call their own doctors. One of the men died some hours later. The post mortem showed arsenical poisoning which was a rare cause of death. Even if the deceased had been examined and admitted for treatment, there was little or no chance that the only effective antidote would have been administered to him in time. Although the hospital had been negligent in failing to examine the men, there was no proof that that the deceased's death was caused by that negligence.
Whitehouse v Jordan (1981) 1 AER 267: The claimant was a baby who suffered severe brain damage after a difficult birth. The defendant, a senior hospital registrar, was supervising delivery in a high-risk pregnancy. After the mother had been in labour for 22 hours, the defendant used forceps to assist the delivery. The Lords found that the doctor's standard of care did not fall below that of a reasonable doctor in the circumstances and so the baby was awarded no compensation.
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors (1985) AC 871: The claimant suffered from pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms. Her neurosurgeon took her consent for cervical cord decompression, but did not include in his explanation the fact that less than 1% of decompression caused paraplegia. She developed paraplegia after the spinal operation. Rejecting her claim for damages, the court held held that consent did not require an elaborate explanation of remote side effects. In dissent, Lord Scarman said that the Bolam principle should not apply to the issue of informed consent and that a doctor should have a duty to tell the patient of the inherent and material risk of the treatment proposed.
Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority (1985) 1 AER 635. The patient presented with symptoms of tuberculosis but both the consultant physician and the consultant surgeon took the view that Hodgkin's disease, carcinoma, and sarcoidosis were also possibilities, the first of which if present would have required remedial steps to be taken in its early stages. Instead of waiting for the results of the sputum tests, the consultants carried out a mediastinoscopy to get a biopsy. The inherent risk of damage was to the left laryngeal recurrent nerve, even if the operation was properly done. In the event, only tuberculosis was confirmed. Unfortunately, the risk became a reality and the patient suffered a paralysis of the left vocal chord. The decision of the physician and the surgeon to proceed was said by their expert peers to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1987) 2 All ER 909. The extent of the hip injuries to a 13 year-old boy was not diagnosed for five days. By the age of 20 years, there was deformity of the hip joint, restricted mobility and permanent disability. The judge found that even if the diagnosis had made correctly, there was still a 75% risk of the plaintiff's disability developing, but that the medical staff's breach of duty had turned that risk into an inevitability, thereby denying the plaintiff a 25% chance of a good recovery. Damages included an amount of £11,500 representing 25% of the full value of the damages awardable for the plaintiff's disability. On appeal to the Lords, the question was whether the cause of the injury was the fall or the health authority's negligence in delaying treatment, since if the fall had caused the injury the negligence of the authority was irrelevant in regard to the plaintiff's disability. Because the judge had held that on the balance of probabilities, even correct diagnosis and treatment would not have prevented the disability from occurring, it followed that the plaintiff had failed on the issue of causation. It was therefore irrelevant to consider the question of damages.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) AC 1074 The defendant hospital, initially acting through an inexperienced junior doctor, negligently administered excessive oxygen during the post-natal care of a premature child who subsequently became blind. Excessive oxygen was, according to the medical evidence, one of five possible factors that could have lead to blindness and, therefore, the Lords found that it was impossible to say that it had caused, or materially contributed, to the injury and the claim was dismissed. In a minority view, Mustill LJ. argued that if it is established that conduct of a certain kind materially adds to the risk of injury, if the defendant engages in such conduct in breach of a common law duty, and if the injury is the kind to which the conduct related, then the defendant is taken to have caused the injury even though the existence and extent of the contribution made by the breach cannot be ascertained.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997) 4 AER 771: A two-year old boy suffered brain damage as a result of the bronchial air passages becoming blocked leading to cardiac arrest. It was agreed that the only course of action to prevent the damage was to have the boy intubated. The doctor who negligently failed to attend to the boy said that she would not have intubated had she attended. There was evidence from one expert witness that he would not have intubated whereas five other experts said that they would have done so. The House of Lords held that there would have to be a logical basis for the opinion not to intubate. This would involve a weighing of risks against benefit in order to achieve a defensible conclusion. This means that a judge will be entitled to choose between two bodies of expert opinion and to reject an opinion which is 'logically indefensible'.
[edit]
Misfeasance
Where it can be shown that the decision-maker was not merely negligent, but acted with "malice", the tort of "misfeasance in public office" may give rise to a remedy. An example might be a prison doctor refusing to treat a prisoner because he or she had previously been difficult or abusive. Although proof of spite or ill-will may make a decision-maker's act unlawful, actual malice in the sense of an act intended to do harm to a particular individual, is not necessary. It will be enough that the decision-maker knew that he or she was acting unlawfully and that this would cause injury to some person, or was recklessly indifferent to that result.

Palmer v Tees Health Authority (1998) AER 180; (1999) Lloyd’s Medical Reports 151 (CA) A psychiatric out-patient, who was known to be dangerous, murdered a four year old child. The claim was that the defendant had failed to diagnose that there was a real, substantial, and foreseeable risk of the patient committing serious sexual offences against children and that, as a result, it had failed to provide any adequate treatment for him to reduce the risk of him committing such offences and/or to prevent him from being released from the hospital while he was at risk of committing such offences. But the court struck out the claim on the grounds that there was no duty of care towards the child, as any child, at any time, was in the same danger. Furthermore, as the patient did not suffer from a treatable mental illness, there was no legal right to either treat or detain the person.
Akenzua v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) EWCA Civ 1470, (2003) 1 WLR 741 where a dangerous criminal due to be deported, was released by the police/immigration services to act as an informant and killed a member of the public. The Lords held that if a public officer knows that his or her acts and omissions will probably injure a person or class of persons, the public body (or the state) will be liable for the consequences. In this case, it was arguable that there had been an illegal use of the power to permit the deportee to remain at liberty and that the officials exercising that power must have known that it was illegal. Given the criminal's record, the officials must at least have been reckless as to the consequences. For these purposes, it was not necessary to prove foresight that a particular individual might be at risk: it was enough that it was foreseeable that the criminal would harm somebody. Palmer was distinguishable because the relevant officials had the power to detain and deport the dangerous person.
[edit]
Conclusions
Overall the question of professional negligence is problematic because, to a certain degree, each profession sets its own standards and may to that extent be considered "self-regulating". The arguments are complex. The difficulty for the law is to strike a balance between the interests of the professionals and those who rely on them. There is a form of legal pendulum that can swing either way depending on the policy issues involved but this is sometimes of little comfort to those who feel that they have not found justice in the legal system. In cases such as Whitehouse v Jordan the court holds that the doctor was not at fault because he did what other doctors might have done in the same circumstances. Thus, the claimant was brain damaged and that damage was caused by what the doctor did, but the doctor was not legally at fault. In one sense, this may be considered fair to the doctor who did exactly what many other doctors would have done. But the baby's brain damage is just as bad no matter what the cause of it, and it seems unfair that the difference between obtaining damage and being denied any remedy should depend on the court's application of negligence. Many use this type of case to argue in favour of a system of no-fault compensation such as that introduced in New Zealand in 1972. The question of no-fault compensation in the UK was considered by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (the Pearson Commission), which reported in 1978. Although the Report was critical of the existing system, its terms of reference prevented it from recommending a comprehensive no-fault scheme. Instead it recommended an extension of the existing social security scheme to give greater assistance to victims of industrial injuries and to include the victims of road accidents. The possible extension of misfeasance in public office to include situations in which potentially dangerous individuals are released into the community complicates the duties of the professions involved. Given that medical professionals are already held out as having more reliable diagnostic and treatment skills, any obvious indifference as to whether those released will cause problems may expose the professionals to a new source of liability (see Mason and Laurie: 2003).

[edit]
References
Brazier, M. (2003). Medicine, Patients and the Law. Third Edition, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Jones, M. (2003). Medical Negligence. Third Edition London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Kennedy, I & Grubb, A. (2000). Medical Law. Third Edition. London: Butterworths.
Mason, J. K. & Laurie, G. T. (2003). "Misfeasance in Public Office: An Emerging Medical Law Tort?" 11 Medical Law Review 194.
Mason, J. K. & Laurie, G. T. (2005). Mason and McCall-Smith's 'Law and Medical Ethics. Seventh Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, Gerald B. (1981). "Whitehouse v Jordan: Medical Negligence Retried". 44 Modern Law Review 457-461.


[引用] | 作者 專科醫生 | 28th May 2006 15:27 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[20]

星屑醫生只是把他當時所見如實地報導出來,並且根據自己的專業知識作出中肯的評論而已。根本不需要害怕。

我也有個讀醫科的同學,我把星屑醫生你寫的文章給了他看,他也覺得很可怕呢!我想你的文章一定能激發他更加努力的學習吧!

星屑醫生的文章不但令我們這些無助的普羅大眾有了警惕,也可以叫正在讀醫的學生們認識到自己的專業真是生死猶關的,不要得過且過。

醫生,我們都支持你呀!


[引用] | 作者 心齋 | 28th May 2006 15:20 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[19] Re:
Anthony :
我是Anthony 蔣 . 還記得是誰嗎?我是你的大學同學,在「大學醫院」當HO時住在同一層宿舍的。真的是很久不見了!從George的網誌裡,才知道你最近發生的事。細閱你的文章,亦替你感到憤怒和擔心。幸好世伯的病情已穩定下來,祝早日康復!至於那些無聊人所說的話,你不用太上心。難道醫生不可以有其他社會和家庭的角色嗎?那些守則只是防止同業以詆譭同行以達到抬高/宣傳自己的目的吧了。

Hi, 當然記得你啦. long time no see, 你在哪裡工作呀現在. 多謝你的關心, 現在好多了.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006 15:14 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[18]

雲斯, Siu,小柴, Miss LEE, Henry Ko, Game Girl, moomoo, whitey, 高立, George, 靚媽, 還有JOLLY, 你們的仗義發言令我覺得很欣慰. 你們都是義氣仔女.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006 15:12 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[17]

我是Anthony 蔣 . 還記得是誰嗎?我是你的大學同學,在「大學醫院」當HO時住在同一層宿舍的。真的是很久不見了!
從George的網誌裡,才知道你最近發生的事。細閱你的文章,亦替你感到憤怒和擔心。
幸好世伯的病情已穩定下來,祝早日康復!
至於那些無聊人所說的話,你不用太上心。難道醫生不可以有其他社會和家庭的角色嗎?那些守則只是防止同業以詆譭同行以達到抬高/宣傳自己的目的吧了。


[引用] | 作者 Anthony | 28th May 2006 15:01 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[16] Re:
Ambrose :
還 有,你 是 醫 生 ,根 據 15.1 ,醫 生 誠 實 地 發 表 意 見, 絕 無 不 妥, 但 有 關 意 見 必 須 是 經 過 小 心 考 慮 及 有 理 由 的, 而 且 是 出 於 真 誠 及 以 促 進 病 人 利 益 為 出 發 點。
of course 你 的 意 見 是 經 過 小 心 考 慮 及 有 理 由 的, 而 且 是 出 於 真 誠 及 以 促 進 病 人 利 益 為 出 發 點。 Right?
基 於 15.2 你 須 就 某 同 業 的 專 業 操 守 或 醫 術, 或 體 格 是 否 適 宜 執 業 等 問 題 知 會 適 當 人 士 或 機 構。所 以 你 要 知 會 A﹠E 的 in-charge consultant,或 HA chief executive。

Ambrose, 我實在很感激你對我的支持, 真是好兄弟.


[引用] | 作者 星屑醫生 | 28th May 2006 14:49 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[15]

不用怕!他(們)根本沒有什麼板斧. 不然早去醫委會投訴你啦.

不過,禮貌上,你都要表示出"好驚"才行呀!

那些人,你愈頂佢,佢愈興奮.他們就是享受那互聯網上可以隱去身份而亂說一通的快感 (可有看過有一句名言:在互聯網上沒有人知道你是一條狗 -- 噢, 先止聲明, "We all know who you are" 我不是指你(們)是一條狗呀)

叫他(們)去醫委會投訴吧! 然後叫醫委會向法庭申請要 ISP 公開你的身份.你估,醫委會會否肯做那麼多? 而且法庭會否受理?

最重要的事.若你的陳述是事實.而且有客觀數字支持 (正所謂 Material fact). 我想, 你可以立於不敗之地!

放心寫吧!

祝世伯早日康復.


[引用] | 作者 高立 | 28th May 2006 14:47 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[14]

真的不明白那人為什麼要悄悄地留下語帶恐嚇的留言呢?
若是有道理的, 他為何不光明正大站出來??

在這裡, 人們的確係可自由發表意見.
但在享受這個 "言論自由" 嘅權利之同時, 他也應該尊重別人...!!

星屑醫生, 你要堅持你嘅 standpoint 呀!
可以不埋那些 "在暗" 的人.

Support you~!!


[引用] | 作者 moomoo | 28th May 2006 12:32 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[13]

Haha... from our friend Lawki's experience...If "We all know who you are" do protest /complain to the medical council... his / her name will be shown... then at that time we all will know who is that "We all know who you are" guys.

No need afraid... we all know you 有道理 和 根據 !!


[引用] | 作者 George | 28th May 2006 12:31 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[12]

有些人總要扮到自己很有分析力,誓要打倒別人為樂。醫生,不用理他了,支持你。


[引用] | 作者 MissLee | 28th May 2006 09:46 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

Next