Page 66 - 20818_park-B_efi

20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Black
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow
20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta
can argue that Shimon had no intention of doing damage,
but only meant well for his friend Reuven - to examine the
coin for him, and he did not think it would break because
of the crack.
In view of the above, it seems that if the physician was examining
the glasses and the glass lens broke, especially if it was not necessary
#
to break the glasses, and especially if he receives payment and if he
saw that they were cracked, he is obligated to pay. However, perhaps
the physician is exempt “for the good of the world”? As we have
previously discussed, one has to clarify whether or not opticians and
ophthalmologists are included in our Sages’ exemption for doctors.
Certainly, he is held accountable by a Heavenly Court, and reaching a
compromise in a human court is praiseworthy.
All this applies if the lens broke when he put it into the machine;
but if it fell out of his hands, he is obligated to pay.
See also the Responsa of Rabbi Eliezer Gordon (Part 1 #2), who
writes that if one does the work for one’s fellowman, he is viewed as
a watchman for him. If he does so for nothing, then he is exempt for
onsim, such as loss or theft, but is obligated to pay if he was negligent.
If he gets paid, he is obligated to pay even for onsin like loss or theft.
(See Choshen Mishpat #303:2-3.)
1 SuMMaRy
If the physician receives payment, he is like a paid watchman and
must pay even if the breaking of the lense was an ones.

Obligating physicians to pay for damage leads to
deleterious results
As we said in the beginning of our discussion, a licensed and well-ed-
ucated physician who unintentionally damages to someone is exempt
60 1 Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein
#20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Yellow 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Magenta 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Cyan 20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-ab | 3 - B | 18-08-20 | 13:29:01 | SR:-- | Black
Payment to a physician who began using a new
type of treatment and wanted to use this new
therapy in order to become famous
1 Question
A physician wanted to publicize a new type of surgery. One patient
came to him and the physician operated on him successfully. No men-
tion was made of payment. Is the patient obligated to pay, or, because
the physician wanted to disseminate this new type of surgery, he is
not entitled to payment?
1 AnsweR
The Chida writes an additional explanation to Geviha ben Pesisa’s
response to the heretic. Sometimes a physician is unknown and he
wishes to do a wondrous act of healing, not so much in order to
get paid, as in order to achieve fame. The fame you will receive for
straightening out my hunchback, said Geviha, will turn you into a
physician in great demand, and you will then collect large fees. From
these words it is clear that in basic halachah one need not pay the
surgeon for the surgery since his intent was to become famous. But if
he is a pious man like Geviha ben Pesisa, it is proper to go above and
beyond the law and pay him.

When suing for compensation will ruin the
doctor’s reputation
1 Question
A patient recently underwent plastic surgery on his nose. The proce-
dure was done incorrectly, and required two additional surgeries to fix
the damage that had been done. The patient was successful in suing
the plastic surgeon for the debacle. The publicity of the suit ruined
the doctor’s reputation and his livelihood suffered as a result.
Removed the Wrong Kidney 2 89
#