Jump to content

Thai Health Ministry Considers Providing Medical Professionals with Legal Liability Immunity


Recommended Posts

Posted

9dcab824f49d19618115976a55ecfaa9_small.png

 

BANGKOK (NNT) - Thailand’s Public Health Ministry is set to issue an executive decree to provide healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients with immunity from legal liability.

 

Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said the decree is intended to reassure medics and those handling the COVID-19 situation that they can concentrate on their work without having to worry about being sued.

 

He said medical personnel will not be held responsible, as long as they carry out their duty honestly and without gross negligence or discrimination. The Public Health Ministry does not want doctors and nurses to worry about lawsuits, so they can devote their time to looking after patients.

 

Mr Anutin said the ministry will gather feedback from all stakeholders, adding that the draft has yet to be submitted.

 

nnt.jpg
Posted
1 minute ago, snoop1130 said:

does not want doctors and nurses to worry about lawsuits, so they can devote their time to looking after patients.

So why only regarding covid19 patients? 

Posted

We're getting more and more curious here. Everyone is responsible for his work. Why does a disclaimer have to be created now? If a lot of houses are being built, then there is also no license to disclaim liability. If a cook stirs snake poison into his soup, he is responsible for it. Why does the health minister want now for himself and his helpers an exception to the rule for careful and responsible work?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

We're getting more and more curious here. Everyone is responsible for his work. Why does a disclaimer have to be created now? If a lot of houses are being built, then there is also no license to disclaim liability. If a cook stirs snake poison into his soup, he is responsible for it. Why does the health minister want now for himself and his helpers an exception to the rule for careful and responsible work?

If you have to build one house a month, no disclaimer is necessary. But if an emergency arises and you have to build 10 a month, then such a disclaimer might be necessary. These aren't ordinary conditions. Health care workers are overextended and overstressed. They simply don't have the time to devote to individual cases that they would otherwise have. 

  • Sad 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you have to build one house a month, no disclaimer is necessary. But if an emergency arises and you have to build 10 a month, then such a disclaimer might be necessary. These aren't ordinary conditions. Health care workers are overextended and overstressed. They simply don't have the time to devote to individual cases that they would otherwise have. 

I do not agree with you. But even in a highly tense situation, work can be carried out with care and a clear conscience. I am not thinking of the nurses and doctors either. I am thinking more of the regulators who create the framework for doctors and nurses. When vaccines are distributed to friends and acquaintances at the side who can be shown to skip the waiting list, when excessive prices are charged for vaccines and someone fills their pockets privately, when vaccination appointments are canceled because there is no vaccine, when there are orders with vaccines Suppliers are publicly postulated and in truth there is no contract? if vaccination numbers are postulated that are not correct, if the general population is deliberately misinformed.

 

Why shouldn't a judge decide and why should legal action be categorically excluded?

 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

I do not agree with you. But even in a highly tense situation, work can be carried out with care and a clear conscience. I am not thinking of the nurses and doctors either. I am thinking more of the regulators who create the framework for doctors and nurses. When vaccines are distributed to friends and acquaintances at the side who can be shown to skip the waiting list, when excessive prices are charged for vaccines and someone fills their pockets privately, when vaccination appointments are canceled because there is no vaccine, when there are orders with vaccines Suppliers are publicly postulated and in truth there is no contract? if vaccination numbers are postulated that are not correct, if the general population is deliberately misinformed.

 

Why shouldn't a judge decide and why should legal action be categorically excluded?

 

For those who set policy, that's one thing. But for frontline healthcare workers quite another:

Burned out by the pandemic, 3 in 10 health-care workers consider leaving the profession

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/22/health-workers-covid-quit/

Edited by placeholder
Posted
4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For those who set policy, that's one thing. But for frontline healthcare workers quite another:

Burned out by the pandemic, 3 in 10 health-care workers consider leaving the profession

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/22/health-workers-covid-quit/

But the planned law does not differentiate here, it categorically excludes responsibility for all parties involved in the broadest sense. It is definitely not the fault of the overworked doctors and nurses if the announced vaccine is not there.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

But the planned law does not differentiate here, it categorically excludes responsibility for all parties involved in the broadest sense. It is definitely not the fault of the overworked doctors and nurses if the announced vaccine is not there.

How do you know, they have not even made a draft yet, it’s still in n discussion stage and it does exclude gross negligence, dishonesty and discrimination

Edited by Bkk Brian
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

How do you know, they have not even made a draft yet, it’s still in n discussion stage and it does exclude gross negligence, dishonesty and discrimination

If you read the article from the other newspaper we can not name here, then u get an idea.

 

Ministry defends liability immunity bill MP raises issue of 'semi-blanket amnesty' that covers policymakers as well.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, tomacht8 said:

If you read the article from the other newspaper we can not name here, then u get an idea.

 

Ministry defends liability immunity bill MP raises issue of 'semi-blanket amnesty' that covers policymakers as well.

 

Ok if covering policy makers then no I do not agree, I only agree with its use for frontline staff, doctors, nurses.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Ok if covering policy makers then no I do not agree, I only agree with its use for frontline staff, doctors, nurses.

I too.

Looks like there are some papers circulating around.

 

Anutin responded to questions raised by Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, list MP of the opposition Move Forward Party, who on Friday claimed to have obtained a draft of the decree granting a “semi-blanket amnesty” to officials.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

But the planned law does not differentiate here, it categorically excludes responsibility for all parties involved in the broadest sense. It is definitely not the fault of the overworked doctors and nurses if the announced vaccine is not there.

Certainly for the higher ups who did so much to create this situation there shouldn't be immunity.

Posted

Dr.'s and health care workers are already immune to lawsuits if "they do the best care they can".  During these trying times they won't be blamed thus no new law is needed.

 

If hospital administration is pushing vaccine doses to local HISOs or military personnel by circumventing the queues they let them be prosecuted.  They were profiting off their position.

 

Where are all the donated Pfizer vaccine doses going?  Each province Govenor should state how many doses they received and let the public total it up since the junta Gov won't specify or be transparent about this.

Posted

So, in other words, Anutin gets "carte blanche" with an amnesty and - as they are it - they also hold medical staff not liable? 

Well, nobody would hold honest medical staff doing their very best liable for anything as they are nothing but executing orders by the health ministry and its chief. 

If the ministry and its bosses, deputy bosses, assistant deputy bosses et al are NOT a part of the amnesty, then you can go ahead as nobody really would take any medical staff to the cleaners - to start with ???? 

Posted
22 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

We're getting more and more curious here. Everyone is responsible for his work. Why does a disclaimer have to be created now? If a lot of houses are being built, then there is also no license to disclaim liability. If a cook stirs snake poison into his soup, he is responsible for it. Why does the health minister want now for himself and his helpers an exception to the rule for careful and responsible work?

“Everyone is responsible for his work“. As far as I know, the companies that manufacture covid injections in the US are not liable for any short or long term adverse reactions.

Posted

Anybody ever heard of a doc being sued here? This is not the USA!

 

This is a craven attempt by those in power to protect themselves from prosecution when we see the other side.

 

Long may they rot in jail...

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...