The Medical Dilemma: What Doctors Feel

What does this imply in modern context? In broader sense, it means that "The fabric of our society would remain strong when every individual irrespective of caste, creed, region and religion can live and partake in progress without fear and prejudice." The Right to live without fear is a significant facet of Article 21 of Indian constitution.

Human life has to be lived with dignity. Life without dignity and self-respect is essentially sans life in proper sense of life- the noblest and priceless gift of nature. Dignity does not come to a man if he is compelled to remain in a state of constant fear or any interminable apprehension of damage that looms large. It has been said by Thoreau "nothing is so much to he feared as fear." Fear is antithesis of real freedom. To put it differently it is an anathema to freedom to live with dignity.

Let’s put this scenario in case of a doctor. The fundamental duty of a doctor is to treat patients without any fear or discrimination. In a real life scenario, doctors exercise this freedom to treat patients with utmost care. There are possibilities that he might be subjected to brutal attack and may become a victim of ire in case the patient dies during treatment. For some, it can be viewed as a case of medical negligence and is really difficult to assess the real situation in which both the patient and the doctor was exposed to. The sensitive relationship between the patient and doctor can be debatable as it is bound by a thin thread and faith is the only solace for people seeking treatment for ailments at hospitals. Taking a humane approach, the situation is critical for both the subject and the object in question. In case of an eventuality, we can be prejudiced and shift the blame on the doctor but does that justifies the ethical conduct of a medical practitioner who are making sincere efforts to save lives on their call for duty. Prudence is akin to what a doctor practices in a practical situation.

Doctors are human beings trained to perform those functions that a normal person can’t do. Sometimes they commit innocent mistakes. Does it that mean that one should be penalised or be subjected to legal and public scrutiny for the wrong-doing despite the fact that he might have made a genuine effort to save the lives. There can be divergent views. In the contemporary parlance, doctors at hospitals have been taken for granted these days. They are equated to Gods if the patient is saved but if the situation is otherwise, he is treated like a villain by the patient’s family. Is this ethical?

This is similar to the case of doctors trying to treat the critically ill, who could die without such help. However, if the death of the person is attributed to the doctor, who is subsequently prosecuted for the fatality, doctors in general could become weary and reluctant to administer treatment.

So in a way, doctors are Good Samaritans play an important role in medical emergency cases. However, there is always a chance that they might fail in saving the patient’s life. Does that mean they should be charged like criminals or their license revoked? Such a situation can lead to collapse of healthcare system and can affect the quality of medical treatment and discourage doctors to take up critical cases.

Doctors like Good Samaritans need to be protected in case they do not succeed in saving a life and they should perform their duty fearlessly.
Just analyse the student-teacher relationship. Conformity and obedience have no place in the right kind of education. Cooperation between teacher and student is impossible if there is no mutual affection, mutual respect. When the showing of respect to elders is required of children, it generally becomes a habit, a mere outward performance, and fear assumes the form of veneration. Without respect and consideration, no vital relationship is possible, especially when the teacher is merely an instrument of his knowledge.

If the teacher demands respect from his pupils and has very little for them, it will obviously cause indifference and disrespect on their part. Without respect for human life, knowledge only leads to destruction and misery. The cultivation of respect for others is an essential part of right education, but if the educator himself has not this quality, he cannot help his students to an integrated life.

Intelligence is discernment of the essential, and to discern the essential there must be freedom from those hindrances which the mind projects in the search for its own security and comfort. Fear is inevitable as long as the mind is seeking security; and when human beings are regimented in any way, keen awareness and intelligence are destroyed.

The purpose of education is to cultivate right relationship, not only between individuals, but also between the individual and society; and that is why it is essential that education should, above all, help the individual to understand his own psychological process. Intelligence lies in understanding oneself and going above and beyond oneself; but there cannot be intelligence as long as there is fear. Fear perverts intelligence and is one of the causes of self-centred action. Discipline may suppress fear but does not eradicate it, and the superficial knowledge which we receive in modern education only further conceals it.

(Dr Anchal Gupta, Founder, Netram is a well known Ophthalmologist. The view expressed in the article is of the writer and not IBNS)