<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CollegeFlyer:
Is your position that "no one is expected to respond" changed now that the doctor has explained he was approached personally at his seat and asked to help?
Also, what's this about an oath? If you refer to the Hippocratic Oath, read it before you cite it. It says only that the physician is to take care of "him who taught me this Art" and teach medicine to his sons "without fee or stipulation." That is LIMITED TO "him who taught me this Art"--that is, the physician should not bill his teacher. This is a reasonable promise.
The remainder of the oath, however, stresses DOING NO HARM.
There is nothing about being OBLIGATED to help, or of following Good-Samaritan mandates.
It does say that the physician will aim to offer help--but does not say that this help should be free (whereas helping his teacher, which is specifically required to be free--this was not merely an oversight).
There is certainly nothing about being on-call 24/7 to provide free services without expecting compensation even while putting onself in harm's way (both because of risk of injury/illness and by placing oneself at risk for liability lawsuits).
Two versions of the text for your reference.
http://www.euthanasia.com/oathtext.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors...classical.html</font>
The Doc never told us he was approached. So yes that's different, and yes I agree the Doc is not on call 24/7 and should not expect to provide free services. So maybe like it was suggested before the Doc should send a bill to the family.
Thanks Collegeflyer for putting me in my place!