[unyttigfjelltol]

Eh, in the US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued.

The point of the video was police as a fraternity don't have any obligation to protect you, personally, absent special circumstances. Which, when you get down to it is sort of like doctors-- if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to.

[chmod775]

> if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to.

In some countries, especially in central Europe, failing to give aid where reasonable can even be a crime. In the US it depends on jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

[yonaguska]

> US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued.

Can you clarify this? Are you saying if a Dr fails to cure you, they are opening themselves up to liability, or they only open themselves up to liability if they go outside of standard protocols and fail to cure you, they are now liable?

I was under the impression that neither of these scenarios open you up to liability- that medical malpractice is an entirely different things. However, I don't know.

Additionally- this seems to create really bad incentives, where the liability-free protocols take precedence over a doctor's judgement.

[jdmichal]

If you can demonstrate that a doctor did not follow "standard operating procedure" and thereby caused harm by not correcting an issue or making it worse, that's a pretty solid malpractice case. Which is why things like experimental intervention involve contracts and disclaimers that you have been informed of the experimental nature, not guaranteed to help, blah blah blah.