For doctors, saving lives is the bounden duty of doctors, but sometimes doctors will face a dilemma, leading to a dead end that will be condemned no matter what choice they make. Just like the doctor in Shanghai who refused to rescue the elderly with asthma because of 120, he didn't lend first aid equipment at that time, but this was not the cause of the death of the elderly, so from a legal point of view, he was not wrong.
First, what happened. At the time of the incident, the doctor involved was performing an urgent task and preparing to send the emergency patients in the car to the hospital. At this time, he happened to meet another emergency patient in the same community for help and asked the ambulance medical staff to lend the car defibrillator. Because there were also emergency patients in the ambulance, the doctor did not lend the defibrillator. Finally, the patient died because of ineffective rescue and the doctor involved was suspended from the hospital.
Second, look at this matter rationally. In fact, from a rational point of view, this is a proposition. If the defibrillator is lent out, the emergency patient in the car is in critical condition and the rescue is invalid. Doctors will not only be suspended, but also be disqualified. And as can be seen from the live video, the old man had no heartbeat and breathing at that time. Even the defibrillator borrowed by the doctor may not save the old man's life, so the doctor has nothing to do with this matter, only that there is something wrong with the way the doctor handles it. It's a bit too cold to roll up the window when others save him.
Third, pause is not the best solution. During the epidemic, medical resources were scarce. At this time, it is not the best way to suspend the doctor. What we really need to consider is how to deal with such a situation in the future. It is hoped that hospitals and relevant departments will improve this situation and reduce the occurrence of this situation while ensuring the rights and interests of medical staff.