No, I’m pointing out that one single study that looked at 35 cases is not conclusive. Of course the media loved it because it generated clicks and views. You and the OP fell for the media hype on this one.
right they are not succeeding
Yes, please point out the post where you state whether police and medical workers should or should not face similar punishment when similar degrees of negligence cause death. I have gone through all your posts and not seen such a comment.
There are citizens there though. How are the cops doing?
Why not?
And Johns Hopkins
That’s a ridiculous assertion. I stated that doctors standard should not be lowered because it’s not an exact science. If you would like for me to explain why that’s different from the police no problem.
but by maintaining order people, property are protected. that’s the point of having an orderly society i’d say
i’m not saying their outright stated mission is to “protect” (although in many cases it is a motto)
but it is the result
Whose property? Why would you say that? If somebody steals from you, what us your expectation about getting your property back?
That “motto” is propaganda.
It is not the result.
2 Likes
Good, so the next doctor or nurse who makes a mistake and kills someone can get a Potter trial and 7 years.
Because extrapolating millions of conclusions based on 35 cases is problematic, especially when other studies have come to different conclusions. Also, the study did not explicitly define “medical error.”
No, a single Johns Hopkins study created the media frenzy that so many people bought into without asking questions. Death sells.
If the death were caused by the treatment not being an exact science, that would not be negligent or reckless but would would simply be acting responsibly with the known facts.
Now, what if a surgeon thought he had a clamp in his hand and he really had a scalpel and accidentally cut a major artery and as a result the person died? Should the surgeon spend ten or more years in prison as a result?
If that’s a known risk of the procedure then no. That’s what i mean by not an exact science. Nicking arteries, cutting colons , cutting bladders are known risks - aka not an exact science
Given that the police are shielded by qualified immunity, yes.
1 Like
So what. How many actual genome sequenced Omicron cases do we have?
How many deaths?
No what? I didn’t say there was more than one, I said Johns Hopkins. Are you calling Johns Hopkins a liar?
Are medical professionals not?
It’s as known a risk to the procedure as is accidentally shooting someone when you are in an incident involving a gun or other instrument.
1 Like
Is there not also known risk to police procedures?
Very risky with so much stuff in digital form now. Anytime in the future there could be reason for forensic investigation and things get found out. I just asked a medical professional that is her opinion. I
Yes that’s why not every negligent act of a police officer is prosecuted.
