In another thread on long hospital shifts, commenters made the point that the detrimental effect of subtle information lost during a shift change often outweighs the effect of sleep loss during a long shift, when looking at patient outcomes.
I wouldn't be surprised if doctors here were gaming the rules because they knew a transfer would cause more harm than good.
On one hand, it's bad to disregard patient autonomy and legitimate guardianship, especially in such an extreme way.
On the other hand, if I was a professional convinced that not doing so would be likely to cause the death of a patient, I can't tell you for sure that I wouldn't do the same thing. The Hippocratic Oath does not say "First, follow the law; Second, do no harm".
>In another thread on long hospital shifts, commenters made the point that the detrimental effect of subtle information lost during a shift change often outweighs the effect of sleep loss during a long shift, when looking at patient outcomes.
>I wouldn't be surprised if doctors here were gaming the rules because they knew a transfer would cause more harm than good.
Well then they could have told the family that was their line of reasoning for not wanting the transfer. If they had a defensible reason they would have worked that angle before using the system to try to make an end run around the patient's/family's wishes.
I wouldn't be surprised if doctors here were gaming the rules because they knew a transfer would cause more harm than good.
On one hand, it's bad to disregard patient autonomy and legitimate guardianship, especially in such an extreme way.
On the other hand, if I was a professional convinced that not doing so would be likely to cause the death of a patient, I can't tell you for sure that I wouldn't do the same thing. The Hippocratic Oath does not say "First, follow the law; Second, do no harm".