澳洲论文代写：医疗案件
医生是否有义务照顾那些不是他们的病人的人?在洛斯·v·伍兹(Lowns v Woods[1996])的案例中，一名医疗从业者的Lowns在新南威尔士州上诉法院(Court of Appeal of NSW)的疏忽中被追究责任，因为他未能提供救助，当帕特里克·伍兹的生命受到威胁时。。伍兹不是Lowns的病人，Lowns博士说，只有当他被传唤时，他才有义务参加。根据《医学实践者法案》(NSW)，第27(2)条(1992年的《医疗实践法案》)规定，如果没有紧急情况，将会构成专业的不当行为，法院会追究医生的责任。在这种情况下，医生们有责任照顾一个处于困境中的人，即使他们没有被传唤。想象一种不同的情况，如果Lowns博士确实参加了病人，如果病人病情恶化，那么医生会被当作一个好撒玛利亚人来治疗，或者医生被认为是在某种程度上违反了护理义务。简单地说，一个门外汉帮助他充分利用他的情况，法庭可能会考虑如果在紧急情况下选择帮助时出现了问题，法院必须向医生提供的考虑是什么?法院可能会考虑上下文,如医生治疗的人是否真正关心的一部分,是否有一个真正的紧急情况或如果医生的情况他不可能呈现所需的适当护理(紧急医疗设备可能不是可供医生)等等。研究表明，这导致了医生们不必要的防御技巧，因为医生可能会觉得他们在紧急情况下停下来帮助别人时，会面临被起诉的风险。这背后的原因可能是因为提供了不同的立法解释。昆士兰州的法律规定，医生必须证明他们是在紧急情况下，或者病人正在接受适当的医疗照顾。《南澳大利亚法案》——1936年的《错误法案》保护了上述情况的医疗人员，并在电话上提供紧急医疗建议。
澳洲论文代写：医疗案件
Do doctors owe a duty of care to people who are not their patients? In the case of Lowns v Woods [1996], a medical practitioner Lowns was held liable in negligence by the Court of Appeal of NSW because he failed to attend in a life threatening situation for Patrick Woods. Woods was not the patient of Lowns. 5 Dr Lowns stated that only if he was summoned he would have a duty to attend. Under the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 (NSW), Section 27(2) (the current Medical Practice Act 1992) which states that failure to attend in emergency will constitute professional misconduct, the court held the doctor liable. In the context of this case it is then established that doctors hold a duty of care to attend to a person in distress even when they are not summoned. Imagining a different situation, if Dr Lowns had indeed attended the patient and if the patient condition had worsened, then would the doctor be treated as a Good Samaritan that helped, or would the doctor be held as having broken duty of care in some way. In simple words, a layman assisting to help makes the best of his situation, and courts might give them due consideration if something goes wrong when choosing to help in the emergency, what should be the consideration that courts must extend to the doctor? Courts might consider the context, such as whether the doctor treated the person as part of genuine care, whether there was a true emergency or if doctor was in a situation where he could not render the needed care appropriately (emergency medical equipment might not be available for the doctor) and more. 6 Research indicates that this leads to unnecessary defensive techniques from the doctor’s end as doctors might feel that they face a risk of being sued when they stop to help someone in an emergency. The reason behind this could be because different legislative interpretations are provided. The Queensland legislation states that for the protection to be offered the doctor must show that they were in a scene of emergency or the patient was on the way to adequate medical care. 7 The South Australia Act -The Wrongs Act 1936 protects a medical person in the above said situation and also when they give emergency medical advice on the phone.