 |
 |
From: Brian Symonds <[log in to unmask]> Hi Allan I agree with your comments. There are elements of unfairness and wrongness with what happened. My point was I guess how we act and react. It is quite possible that the person reporting K had never done that before, and didn't understand the consequences of their actions. We want citizens to report dangerous or potentially dangerous situations, and have to create an atmosphere in which they can and will do that. How do you educate the people who took the time and effort (not many do as evidenced by stories on TV and in the press) to report K (presuming it wasn't malicious) without causing an atmosphere where people wouldn't report things? The process that happened after K was reported seems flawed, based on the knowledge we have of it. Can something be done to try to ensure the process works better for the accused person, and so that the people making the allegations have some knowledge of what happened? It is hard to comment on K's family doctor's role in this. I am obviously biased, but it seems to me that it would be important to try to ascertain if the doctor's report was old or new, and if the incorrect dosage of medication was in fact a part of the doctor's report, or a transcription error in the information K received. If the error was the doctor's, I would presume that the doctor would take the responsiblity for that error in some manner. However, if the doctor did make an error, and recognizing that, did speak to a lawyer (as all doctors are advised to do by the lawyers through which they get their liability insurance), then I am preety sure the doctor has been directed by the lawyer not to say anything, and perhaps that is even the reason that the doctor "dumped K as a patient". If the error is the doctor's, the doctor may wish to acknowledge that, but will be constrained by the legal advice they get. And it would be unlikely that the doctor would risk loosing liability insurance coverage by going against legal advice (you can't practice without insurance). Once the legal process gets involved, everyone becomes constrained by that set of rules. How do you get the Motor Vehicle Licencing people to accept their responsibility for the process that they put K through when there seems no fairness about it? Having the power to "save society" by denying someone the right to drive should surely be exercised with some kind of due process. And, lastly, what about K? It would certainly seem reasonable to most of us that K be able to recover some kind of damages for being incorrectly accused, having sentence passed without what would seem to be due course, and then have to pay out of his own pocket to right the wrong. I'm not against lawyers-my sister is one. Its just that many people who go through the legal system to try to get justice or damages end up very frustrated with the costs, the delays and time involved, and even with a successful outcome wonder if the frustration and anger and turmoil was worth it. Isn't there some way for K to feel good about himself (i.e., this would be the damage payment that K would give to himself) and to help society deal with these kinds of situations in a more balanced manner than to go to a lawyer and fight through the courts? I will be interested in further comments!