Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:02:35 +0800

From: Alex Loke

Subject: Football clubs

Can the conflict not be mitigated by subordinating the interest of the employer to the interest of the employee? After all, might not one argue that the doctor's duty is to the physical well-being of his patient rather than to the impact upon the employer's bottom line? (I know, I know, doctors are conscious of their own bottom line.) In the event of a 100% recovery after amputation and 98% recovery from chemotherapy treatment, the options are so close that I would expect the doctor to lay both options before the patient and let him decide.

I think the decision a right one - why should the doctor be taken to assume a duty to protect the economic interests of the employer?

However, I don't find the 'conflict' argument too persuasive. If the principal concern is that the doctor becomes exposed to crushing claims for economic losses (as a result of which the costs to the ordinary consumer rises. cf. Caparo), then, let's just admit that it a policy driven determination. I'd expect that we'd have less problems if the claim is merely for the costs of remedial treatment following a bungled treatment.

Alexander Loke

John Murphy wrote:

Re. potential conflicting interests:

I don't know about declaring a player fit to play when he is not being a good example of conflicting interests, but I think they could well exist.

If memory serves, didn't Bob Marley die of cancer that first appeared in a toe after an injury to the toe in a football game?

Well, suppose that Marley was a professional football player and his club paid for him to receive medical advice and treatment. What would happen if he went to the doctor with his dodgy toe, good and early and the doctor said:

"If we amputate the toe now, the cancer won't spread and kill you. However, there's a 98% chance that if we give you proper treatment (chemo, or radiotherapy or whatever), there's every chance you will make a full recovery".

Let's suppose, too, that

(1) our player is a bit thicko [I know I'm stretching your imaginations here], and
(2) that he can't work out the pros and cons of either option for himself, and
(3) that the club makes it clear that they are delighted there is a near-certainty that, with treatment, the player can make a full recovery.

What should the doctor advise here? And in advising the player should he factor in the fact that the club is paying the bill and would like the player to have treatment?

I dunno ....

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>