It looks to me like both camps are right, depending on the situation. Nakamura et al. choose to wait for professional assistance in spite of the consequences. Irvine et al. choose to administer a technique that has worked for them. Both choices would be defensible in court. Personally, if I were drowning and George were my buddy, I would prefer his approach, especially if the boat and rescue team were not immediately available. If Karen communicates to George before- hand that under no circumstances does she want to be rescued by purging, then George had better not attempt this, regardless of the consequences for Karen. Also, consider what the "community standard" is in your particular area. In the medical profession, if you act within your community standard, your case becomes solidly defensible, even if the victim's outcome is not optimal. Lawyers can complicate matters as much as they want to, but it still helps to act in good faith, don't violate the victim's known wishes, and practice within your community standard. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]