NightFox

When doctor's do oath that they won't tell anything about their patient to anyone
else than to the patient they have also given a moral question.
"If I notise that patient is risk in traffic should I report to police so they can take
away his/her driving lisence"

In Finland few years back this was great issue and there was kinda big fight going
on for long time. Result is that now doctors has to report if patient is a risk.

So I'm asking is doing so against the oath they did when they graduated?

I personaly think that they violate their oath and this ain't reason to breack the oath.
In some cases like AIDS patient is spreading out the disease is telling that to
police or etc. is considered as rightneous as far as I care.

Please share with your point of view in this matter.

__________________

jaam0927

yeah... for me they are violating their oath.... Im never going to trust a doctor anymore >_> jk..... but I mean if u know that someone can put someone elses life in danger u have to do something, like what u said that the person that cant drive... if u dont say anything... probably as the guy that couldnt drive was just leaving the hospital seeing U his doctor, and he gets in an accident..... u could have prevented that guy of being in an accident.... so I guess if a person can put in danger another persons life... its ok to say something to prevent this.....

__________________

NightFox

I have like 4 doctors in my near relatives so according what they have spoke
they don't like that law either, but nevertheless doctors keep their oath
in any other kinda illnesses.

My grandfather lost his driving license cos' for stroke but he regained it after
few months and after taking driving test again. So in this kinda situations I actually
can understand why they made that law.

__________________

cerebrum

ah well... if there is a law in progress and patience are completely informed of it, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. It sucks but wat ya gonna do.

__________________

dude101

i can see that they place this law to help protect the patients, and isn't it a doctors duity so save patients lives. i mean if they can't safely drive they are placing themselve and others at risk of serious injuries or worst. and if the doctor knows this and does nothing, then is he helping that person to the fullest of his abilities? so isn't that a conflict between 2 oaths, and which one is more important?

anyway i don't really see this as a bad thing, but i can understand y ppl don't like this law, it takes aways or sense of trust that we have from our doctors, and ppl might not be so willing to talk about their medical condition if they think they might get their liences taken off them.

so i guess it isn't such a bad law, and but there is some definate issues with it though.

NightFox

Yup doctors do oath to save patient but also that they don't tell patient records
to anyone, so it's kinda moral question which is more important.
I personaly would like that doctor would first tell me that she/he is gonna tell my
weakened driving ability to police, but still I think that it's wrong.

__________________

Zdenek

In our country, the doctor checks a person prior to the driving tests, so he has the power to not let him drive. But it doesn't work if the disease appears later, of course.
The question in the poll is invalid. Their "oath" is moralless itself, so it's no use if they violate it or not. But it has recently (history-wise) gotten better. At least such points as healing their teachers' children for free and keeping the potion ingredients secret have been removed.

__________________

Dejiko | Koboshi | Puchiko | Misha

NightFox

Ofcourse you have to take medical check-up before driving test, but also there
are few test later in Finland, like when ya 60.
yes oath, is moraless but when when adding something that affects feelings and etc
it moralises the whole deal. Cos' they made oath that they must obey, is it moraly right
to breack that oath to save human lifes(which is included in the same oath)
So it puts doctor between two options.

__________________

Rave_Grip

I totally agree with Dude101 here. He said what I wanted to say, but nonetheless I don't really see this as a bad thing.

__________________

Wherever you see, there is always 98% of people who love something; and 2% that don't. I'm pretty sure that not ALL 98% of peeps don't support Lolita or anything. So if you agree, put it in your sig.
| .:~My AO Gallery~:. | | .:~The AO Rules~:. |

KnightofNi

Doctors cannot discuss with anybody patients records nor with patient treatment at least in the US without a court order unless the patient allows the doctor for it to be released or there is an immenient danger is presented. However, this area is very gray, really gray, because though doctors have this clause, the government doesn't.

__________________

Clan orders: Wear the signature of defeat with pride.

Shonen

First of all, never trust a doctor. They're all nothing but leeches anyway. Secondly, I DO think they are violating their oaths, BUT, as we finns have witnessed so many times, no one really cares.

__________________