@thrw_a_way1221221
You are engaged in a few fallacies here.
Of course, professionals want to protect themselves from liabilities. We live in a liability culture where just touching someone however innocuous it is can get you potentially sued. Even picking up the elderly who have fallen over without the proper training can get you sued. Where grieving families will come after you if their loved one dies and channel all that grief and anger on you as you become a rabid focus of their hate. They will use existing negligence or duty of care laws and those no win no fee lawyers to do it.
If that happens it is not a small thing either. It usually means being suspended for a time until the issue is resolved and when it comes to the law that can be a long process. It can mean going without pay and we all have rent and utilities to keep in mind. Even if the issue is resolved and you are absolved of responsibility you may be let go anyway because in the public's mind there is no smoke without fire. This will also damage future work prospects. Pretty much every business going has built-in protections against such occurrences. It is part of the reason contracts exist with multiple clauses in the first place, and business have internal policies they can demonstrate were followed if a legal challenge is made. A service sued into bankruptcy can no longer provide a service to anyone. You shouldn't blame the people that work with those liabilities in mind. It is not their fault we live in cultures where you can make frivolous lawsuits with ease.
https://www.medscape.com/features/content/6006313#vp_1
People are unlikely to take on a therapeutic role if they can't minimise that risk to themselves or their dependents. Because there is just so much to potentially lose, and you just can't trust the general public as a wider whole. It is a baseless assumption though to presume that means those professionals don't care.
Therefore, it is always easier for them and society to blame the patient, victim, or person for not getting better since there is no concrete way of treatment or solving any real issues that a person may have.
Where is this idea of blame coming from? You are right there is no concrete way of treatment. If there was it would be a blueprint followed to exclusion of all else. Most of medicine has no concrete way either. Probably because human beings are varied and complex.
yes, they don't care if the patient recovers or not, as long as they can earn money, advance their career while receiving the praises of society and their peers, and not get into trouble, that's all that matters to them.
This is a pretty insulting sentence, not just to me but likely others on this site who come from backgrounds of caring professions. You are engaged in the faulty generalization fallacy.
Assuming they all mostly don't care is no different to assuming. That because some surgeons cause medical complications most surgeons cause medical complications. It is going on further to imply that all those surgeons don't care because they also get paid.
You can be paid for a job and still care. Just because you are getting paid for something does not magically mean all passion or care evaporates, simply because your bank balance improves and you can afford a holiday to the Maldives. We live in a capitalist society which has at its heart a monetary exchange for labor. If you are looking for true altruism you are on the wrong planet.
People who get involved in the care sector often start out genuinely caring. The problem arises though when that capacity to care gets stripped down by internal politics, top-down pressures, ridiculous bureaucracy, liabilities, and getting your trust burned repeatedly. Some people will become jaded and lapse into doing the bare minimum. Others never let it affect them finding fulfillment in their role. Others like me burn out. There are going to be pure careerists, but that is true of any job you can advance in. People are varied at the end of the day. Broad sweeping generalisations are often inaccurate.
@peachesNpoison
I just question whether these contracts have any real affect on legal liabilities if the patient ctb's.
If your client signs it, you have entered into a sort of trust with them. Because it demonstrates a reduction in assumed immediate risk. (whether it is true or not does not matter.) You get done over failing to act to an immediate threat to life that was foreseeable. A contract of safety is evidence that the immediacy was greatly reduced. It is a brick in the wall of your defence should it arise. Judges don't expect you to be a psychic capable of mind reading and prophecy, at the end of the day.
If they don't sign then they are viewed at immediate risk. At which point you are obligated by law and protocol. If you can demonstrate you followed that law and protocol you won't get dragged over the coals because you did as the law expects. The grey area is it is all a judgement call with no certainty and grim ramifications for getting it wrong.
I could also explain how you can whip up a contract in 3 minutes drawn in crayon and have it exist on napkins and still count as valid if it meets the criteria. But I have run out of energy.
