"Ultimately the Doctor is responsible if they incorrectly diagnose the level of care the individual needs and allows them to return to society either (un)medicated, under (or not) the supervision of another individual, or otherwise. If they are allowed back into society and fail to take their medication, or their responsible charge fails at the duties they agree to... then that would negate the liability the Doctor faces. If the doctor simply failed to see how bad off the individual was or potential level of harm that could come from their release, then the Doctor would be held responsible."


you must really dislike doctors webscar, or you don't realize the predicament that puts doctors in. suppose a doctor is taking care of a schizophrenic. most schizos are pretty harmless, being nuts doesn't automatically make you violent.

for one, doctors cannot predict the outcomes of individual patients with mental diseases or brain damage- at least not very well. if some 20 something comes down with their first psychotic episode a doctor can't look at them and say if they are going to have another, sink into a constant psychosis, or never have one again.

if the buck stops at the doctor and you are asking for more judgement that is possible then they will err on the side of caution and start locking up everyone with a major depression.

 

-----signature-----

What happens when the doctor says "this level of care/services is necessary for this person" and the insurance company won't pay for it and the family can't? Who then is responsible?

Again, I'm thinking more in terms of my co-worker's husband. Insurance paid for the surgery, and a portion of the rehab- enough to get him walking and talking again, essentially. After that, even though he needs specific services in order to essentially help him re-wire his brain to where it needs to be, they said "tough nuts, figure it out on your own." There's no possible way she can pay for that level of care (it would run into the six figures in no time).

 

-----signature-----

this

 

-----signature-----

there are no good predictors of dangerous behavior at the individual level. in california you can be held for 72 hours if a doc or cop claims you are a danger to yourself and others. the way that usually happens is you have totally lost it or you just climbed over the rail of a bridge and almost jumped. basically the holds are all after someone has done something extreme. there is no good predictor to use before such behavior, no legitimate way to use them beforehand without locking up a bunch of people unnecessarily.


when you say have a reason to suspect something might happen i have literally no clue what you are talking about. you may think there are obvious warning signs if you read news stories and their ridiculous hindsight, but reality is different.

What happens currently? Friend of mine has Crohn's. He was on his death bed because of it. There was an shot he could get but it cost 10k a pop and wouldn't guarantee survival. He had no insurance and had no money to pay for it himself. It was an possibly life saving shot, but it's for a chronic illness and as such the hospital had no obligation to continue his care. He was forced to lay there and die. The only reason he didn't was because a private group funded him.

That's simply the sort of society we live in. If you're unable to afford care then you're SOL. If he required that level of care and didn't get it then you cannot blame the doctor for not going broke himself to pay for the patient. You cannot fault those that are helping him because they are ill-equipped to handle all of his needs. He would take on the responsibility himself for being a defective unit which is not useful enough or wealthy enough to gain repair. Hopefully it works out; if not then he'll face the consequences of his action, be they intentional or not.

 

-----signature-----

It's a good thing I err on the side of caution then, huh? My statement is saying that if there aren't obvious warning signs (which you so kindly point out that there aren't) then he's not liable.

It's an issue of neglect vs ignorance. If you know he'll likely kill someone and by a court of law it can be proven that the warning signs are there; then yes you have some liability.

 

-----signature-----

medical divorces, its becoming a common practice among couples to protect the assets of their spouse.

 

-----signature-----

if you are unable to inhibit your dangerous behavior, you are a danger to society, and should be locked up. It goes right along with what Reapist said. Lots of people claim to have uncontrollable urges, and we always hold them accountable if they know the behavior is bad.

If you know you're a danger because you can't stop stabbing things, and it will escalate to people, the responsible thing to do is tell a mental health professional that you may be a danger to others.

 

-----signature-----

If you are not able to be held accountable for your actions then whoever in charge of you should be. In essence if you are so very messed up that you can hurt somebody because you do not think it is wrong -- well then your guardian should have been watching you. Nobody should just be released into the population without someone watching over you if you are not accountable.

 

-----signature-----