Originally posted by BillyBong:
Even the doctors themselves on testimony did not deny 'failing to
diagose or treat Cpl Chua', clearly indicating that their planned
defence stemmed from convincing the judge that the infection
symptoms were 'so atypical' and rare that they could not be faulted
for failing to save his life.
From a doctor's point of view, is that a fair assessment? Worst,
from a neutral's point of view, isn't that a blatant excuse?
We are not asking doctors to be omnipotent lifesavers, nor are we
saying that they are infallible, but were all avenues to prevent it
happening explored? [/b]
As Professor Leo explained during the hearing, the symptoms that
the unfortunate deceased presented with were not of infective
diseases. If someone did not present with the group of symptoms
that characterise a particular disease, it is difficult for a
doctor to come to the correct conclusion, isn't it?
Hence, they did "fail to diagnose or treat" Cpl Chua, but that is
only clear on hindsight, not at that point in time.
