Example, if you're not aware of the concept or someone else isn't: you get in a bad car accident in the mountains and in the car behind you is a doctor. He treats you while you're unconscious and waits for an ambulance to arrive. In a week, you receive a bill from the doctor for the service. I guess the point is when someone is knocked unconscious and bleeding or something, it's assumed he would want the services of a doctor but he can't actually give consent.
I've been studying quasi-contracts in Commerical Law the past couple weeks. I can see why someone would object to them, but I think they do more good than bad overall.
I would certainly feel an obligation, morally, to give back in anyway that I could to the person for saving me, but I'm not sure if it should be a legal thing. Doctors have a legal obligation to take care of people in a medical situation. If he stops, sees you and ignores it, then he can be prosecuted as far as I know.
you'd have to be a scumbag to charge in a life or death situation. You're not obligated to help but if you do help because you know if you don't they could die and then try to charge them for it. That's pretty messed up.
But then again they would receive the same treatment at a hospital, not only that but they got it a lot sooner than if the doctor wasn't there. If the doctor on site helps you avoid getting the same treatment once you arrive at a hospital that seems fine.
__________________
"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
Quasi-contract doesn't only apply to a setting offsite of a hospital (and it isn't limited to medical situation). If you were brought into an ER and were incapable of making decisions for yourself, the doctor would perform the procedure it would be assumed you'd consent to. I don't understand why it isn't okay to charge for it.
I think it's safer to assume that a person would want to not die than to assume that their life is worth less than the sum total of their medical expenses.
I think it's safer to assume that a person would want to not die than to assume that their life is worth less than the sum total of their medical expenses.
well yea, I was just trying to think of a situation where someone would not conscent to treament. I guess I should have went with "on site treatment is not always necessary"
__________________
"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
I think it's safer to assume that a person would want to not die than to assume that their life is worth less than the sum total of their medical expenses.
How dare you make such assumptions!
But seriously, costs for operations can be quite high, and some people have NO way to pay for it.