Page 206 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 7 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:02 | SR:-- | Black
by only giving over the information [regarding the error] to the doc-
tor. It is certainly our duty to put pressure on those who are involved
in this matter so that they not make mistakes.
Therefore, although we have to avoid shaming someone, in this
case, if we refrain from doing so, there is a real possibility of danger
to the life of many other patients. This is the type of situation where
we say, “It is better to desecrate one Shabbos and not many.” For this
reason, it is preferable, to begin with, to mention the name of the
midwife involved, because this will certainly increase the pressure on
the physicians and the nurses to concentrate on their actions so that
no mishap occur because of them. We are required to do everything
possible. This is not considered hishtadlus through sin, much like he
who desecrates Shabbos for pikuach nefesh did not commit a sin, but
rather performed a mitzvah.
The midwife who is ashamed benefits as well because she will defi-
nitely be more careful in the future. Thus we save her from erring in
matters of pikuach nefesh. One is permitted to rebuke one’s friend in
order to save him from sin.
Although the mitzvah of rebuking one’s fellow is on condition that
we “do not carry a sin upon him,” the Rambam writes (Hilchos Deos
6:12) that in matters of Heaven, if he did not regret his actions, it is
right to embarrass him in public and to shame him until he returns to
the right path. In our case, where this is the only way that the things
will really be heard, it is a fulfillment of the mitzvah of rebuking one’s
fellow, for it saves the midwife from future errors.
There is also a third thing. At the end of Sefer Chafetz Chaim, he
quotes the responsum of the Chavos Yair, who wonders how we find
in the Talmud expressions of contempt and spite that Talmudic Sages
said about each other. For example, Rebbi said about Levi, “It seems
to me that he has no brain in his skull.” And the Chavos Yair explains
that at the end of the first chapter of maseches Sanhedrin (17b) it is
mentioned that Levi was a disciple of Rebbi, and a teacher is allowed
to rebuke his disciple with harsh words in order to stimulate him to
delve into a matter, and safeguard himself from error.
If these words were written in the Talmud, then certainly, Rebbi
200 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#
Halachically, a child cannot waive his rights. How are we permitted
to dictate private matters to the secretary, who does not need to know
them for any reason?
This question applies not only to a hospital but to every office and
organization, whether it is a school or a factory. Furthermore, how is
it permissible for dayanim to dictate a claimant’s claim to the secre-
tary? [One cannot justify it by saying that since the the claims were
said before three judges, there is no slander involved, for, as explained
in maseches Bava Basra 39a, anything that was said before three is no
longer considered lashon hara. One cannot claim this here because
the Chafetz Chayim wrote (Hilchos Lashon Hara #2:5) that if the
three were G-d-fearing men who are careful about the prohibitions
of slander, this matter should not be revealed. Proof for this is from
a halachah regarding dayanim. A dayan is prohibited from saying: “I
thought you were innocent, but the others said you were guilty, what
could I have done…” (as explained in maseches Sanhedrin 29a), and
the Mishnah applied this rule even to a beis din of seven judges.]
Thus, in regard to our question, Is a director allowed to dictate
to his secretary a letter that includes negative information about a
physician?
In my humble opinion I would advise the department director to
dictate the letters to the secretary without citing the names of the
doctors involved, and then he can fill in the name of the physician in
each letter by himself. This way, the secretary will not know to whom
the letter refers and there will be no lashon haora involved.
My father-in-law, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, agreed with me.
He added that if the secretary will understand on her own to whom
the letter refers, the director is obligated to take time off from his
work in the hospital, and write the letters himself. Just as he would
take time off from work for some important reason or another, avoid-
ing slander and gossip is an important goal of its own, justifying not
dictating the letter to the secretary. One must be concerned the honor
of another person, and refrain from revealing his shame before some-
one who does not need to know of it.
The Tzitz Eliezer answered this question as follows: Since the peo-
Dictating negative opinions to secretary 2 205