Page 94 - 20818_park-B_efi
P. 94

from payment of damages in a human court because of the Rabbinic
                         Payment to a physician who performed surgery                          decree “for the good of the world” (otherwise, physicians would stop
                         negligently but saved a life                                          practicing medicine and saving lives).
                                                                                                  In this context it would be fitting to relate something we heard
                   1     Question                                                              from Dr. Y. Gat:
                                                                                                  An airplane passenger once suffered a heart-attack while the plane
               An expert physician decided to perform surgery and to remove an                 was in midair. The cabin crew asked for any physician on board the
               enlarged prostate gland. The decision was negligent, because other              plane to come and save the sick passenger. Two Israeli physicians
               ways of treating an enlarged prostate were not considered. It seems             began to apply resuscitative measures. They worked on him for four
               that he is not entitled to get paid for the surgery, since he caused the        hours and then the patient went into cardiac arrest. Suddenly, an
               loss of an organ unnecessarily and made the patient sterile. On the             American cardiologist appeared. With their combined efforts, the
               contrary, it seems that the physician should pay the patient for the            patient survived.
               wound he inflicted. However, during the surgery an unanticipated                   When the plane landed and the patient was taken to a hospital
               malignant growth of the prostate was discovered.                                by ambulance, the two physicians asked the cardiologist, “Why did
                  In light of this, is the physician entitled to get paid despite his neg-     you wait until the cardiac arrest, and why did you not come when
               ligence in performing the surgery to begin with?                                physicians were first requested?”
                                                                                                  “By American law,” answered the cardiologist, “an attorney will ad-
                   1     AnsweR                                                                vise the family of the patient to blame the physician for mistreatment
                                                                                               and flaws in his conduct and to sue him. That is why I held back,
               According to the words of the Chida (above) on the case of Geviha               thinking, why should I get myself into trouble? I’ll stand back and
               ben Pesisa, the law exempts Geviha from paying because the here-                pray for my colleagues’ success. When the patient went into cardiac
               tic’s intent was to do harm, even though it was ultimately beneficial.          arrest and was considered legally dead, I was able to come forward
               Geviha could go beyond the letter of the law and pay him as an expert           and assist without any concern of being sued.”
               physician. This principle can be applied to our case as well; since the            The words speak for themselves and there is no need to bring fur-
               intent of the physician was not to benefit the patient by removing his          ther proof of the wisdom of our Sages in exempting a physician who
               enlarged prostate, and his actions were unlawful, one does not pay              errs from payment for damages.
               him.                                                                               In this context, we will cite two other questions that came to our
                  To the physician’s credit, we can claim that while he was negligent          attention:
               and hasty in his decision, he certainly had no intent to do harm.                                          
               Nonetheless, the patient is exempt from paying him, for his intent
               was to remove the prostate when he had other treatment options.
                  However, according to the view of my father-in-law, Rav Yosef                          A Hatzalah volunteer was sued for stealing
               Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, cited above, they should pay him like a regular
               surgeon who is removing a growth, but not like an expert physician.                 1     Question

                                                                                            A man collapsed in his home and called Hatzalah for help. After he




        88               1  Medical-HalacHic Responsa of Rav ZilbeRstein                       Error in Refraction Measurements  2                       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:-- | Magenta   20818_efi-ab - 20818_efi-a






                                                                   #































































                                                                                                                                                                                # 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:-- | Yellow
   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99