Page 333 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta
#
11
#
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 11 - A | 18-08-20 | 13:29:04 | SR:-- | Black
cessful, since the man’s veins were hidden. After the fifth attempt,
A taxi driver claims he is not an epileptic the patient cried out that he was not prepared to be pricked with a
needle anymore and he did not care if he would not be healed. Trying
1 Question to calm him, the physician swore that he would not prick him more
than 15 times. The patient calmed down. After the 15 attempt, the
th
A man fainted in the street. A physician was summoned, and he physician had still not succeeded in finding a vein. He did not know if
recognized the classic convulsions of epilepsy. The doctor remained he was allowed to try again or was prohibited from violating his oath.
on site for a few moments, as required, and left once the patient had
regained consciousness. Afterwards, he was shocked to see the recov-
ered man enter a taxi on the next street and drive it. 1 AnsweR
“You are not qualified to drive. Why are you driving?” he asked the
man. It seems that the physician’s oath is not valid, since he swore to bypass
“I do not know what you are talking about,” replied the taxi driver. a mitzvah, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah #239:4).
“I was never sick with epilepsy.” The physician is obligated to heal the patient, and creating an opening
“Why, just a few minutes ago you had a seizure and I treated you,” through which to administer the medication is part of that obligation.
replied the doctor. The difficulty in finding a vein in elderly people is a known problem,
so the insertion of the needle is also viewed as part of the treatment.
“You must be talking about a man who resembles me,” countered
the driver. “You are not the first to mistake me for another.” Perhaps we can rule that the oath is valid based on the law of “in-
The physician wants to know if he should report to the police that clusiveness.” (Rama, ibid., 8) Had he succeeded in his seventh attempt,
an irresponsible person is endangering himself and the public by then there is no mitzvah to make additional insertions, and the oath
driving despite the possibility of his having an epileptic seizure while would apply since those insertions would have no medical value. In
on the road, or should he believe the driver’s claim that he is not the that case, the oath would be valid by “inclusiveness,” and apply even to
patient, although it seems far-fetched? the necessary attempts at insertion. Perhaps it depends on the exact
wording of the oath. Did he swear “not to prick him more than 15
times,” or did he say “I will not try more than 15 times,” in which case
1 AnsweR the oath would only apply to those medically necessary attempts?

This requires further study.
It seems to me that even if the driver lied, the physician is exempt from
dealing with this. There is no clear possibility of danger involved. It is If we decide that the oath is valid, then it cannot be nullified on the
possible that he will not have a seizure while driving, and that even if basis that it was made under coercion since the physician had to act
he will, he will feel it coming on and stop. Even if he loses control of in order to calm the patient (as we stated above regarding the cancer
the steering wheel, who says this will cause a tragedy? patient). In this case, the physician was not compelled to swear, since
The matter resembles what the Aruch Hashulchan describes (Or- there are other physicians in the department and this physician is not
ach Chayim 316:22). He writes as follows: obligated to treat this patient specifically. In the former case, the ill
man was a regular patient of this particular physician. He knew that
It is permissible to kill a wild dog on Shabbos because it only this physician understood his condition and could answer his
poses a clear danger. When it is unclear if it is really a wild questions. The physician could not escape the situation by referring

334 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein Is a doctor obligated to report deficient vision? 2 327