Vol , Issue Date of Publication: April 01, 2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2011.054

Views
, PDF Downloads:

LETTERS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2011.054


Are doctors justified in refusing to give emergency treatment?

Every doctor has been called upon, at some time, to provide emergency life saving treatment, especially in road accident cases. Unfortunately, doctors are often reluctant to attend to emergencies (1), harbouring apprehensions about having to visit police stations, being called to court repeatedly as witnesses, sometimes facing long and unnecessary cross examination, and losing earning hours.

Private practitioners are under the impression that “medico-legal” emergencies are to be dealt with only by government doctors and usually refer such cases to a government hospital. Government doctors have no option but to attend medico-legal cases.

According to the law, any doctor who provides first aid in an emergency case will not be held liable or negligent in case any mishap occurs after that patient leaves his care (2). The Supreme Court has held that (3):

The police, the members of the legal profession, law courts and everyone concerned will also keep in mind that a man in the medical profession should not be unnecessarily harassed for purposes of interrogation or for any other formalities and should not be dragged during investigation at the police station and it should be avoided as far as possible. Our law courts will not summon a medical professional to give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even if he is summoned, attempt should be made to see that the men in this profession are not made to wait and waste time unnecessarily. It is also expected that where the facts are so clear it is expected that unnecessary harassment of the members of the medical profession either by way of requests for adjournments or by cross examination should be avoided.

In another judgement (4), it was held that the amount of care, skill and caution expected of a reasonable and prudent medical practitioner in normal times and during an emergency may not be the same.

A three member commission headed by Justice M Jagannadha Rao has drafted a bill (5) pertaining to private hospitals and practitioners and the treatment of accident victims and emergency patients. According to the bill, hospitals cannot refuse care to an accident victim even on the ground that it was a medico-legal case. At the very least, they must provide emergency treatment and transport, with medical support, to another hospital, seeking the help of the police if an ambulance is not available. Doctors or hospital administrators who refuse emergency treatment face six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000.

On the whole, irrespective of legal concerns, doctors should not refuse emergency treatment, at least on moral grounds.

Rajesh Sangram, Professor and Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad Road, Raichur, Karnataka 584 102 INDIA e-mail: [email protected]

References

  1. Mathiharan K. Emergency medical care; its ethical and legal aspects. Natnl Med J India. 2004; 17(1): 31-5.
  2. 1996 (1) CPJ 169; 1995 (3) CPR 174 (Karnataka SCDRC)
  3. Paramanand Katara. V. Union of India (1989) 4 SSC 286; (AIR 1989 SC 2039).
  4. 1997 ACC CJ 1103, para 13. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Dr. Kirit Kumar S Sheth.
  5. Law Commission of India. 201st report. Emergency medical care to victims of accidents and during emergency medical condition and women under labour. [Internet]. New Delhi: ministry for law and justice, government of India; 2006 Aug [cited 2011 Feb 26]. Available from: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep201.pdf
About the Authors
Rajesh Sangram ([email protected])
Professor and Head, Department of Forensic Medicine
Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad Road, Raichur, Karnataka 584 102
Help IJME keep its content free. You can support us from as little as Rs. 500 Make a Donation