And here’s the “debate” that stemmed, from the case above! Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…
The N.T.U. was SUED for not “doing its duties in maintaining controls over the patients” in the case of the woman with the sexual impulses and schizophrenia having sex with a male patient, and the courts mandated the hospital to pay the money to the woman and her family; the key of the entire case lies in, how big is it exactly, the “services provided” by the hospitals?
The victim claimed that there was the contract of medical professionalism between the N.T.U. Zhudong Branch and the victim, but the hospital failed to provide “the proper and excellent care”, which became an unfulfillment of debt; while N.T.U. claimed that no such relations existed. From the angle of the hospital, this is just, because in the hospitalizations, it is the families’ responsibilities to look after their loved ones, and if they couldn’t, then, they should hire a nurse’s aide, there’s NO way that the medical staff can watch for everybody’s wellbeing.
The courts believed, that the medical contract is driven by monetary labor, and the medical contract’s primary purpose is to provide the medical treatments needed to the patients, as for the living needs during the hospitalization, is it, all included, into this, medical contract? It’s to be, discussed further.
The differences between onerous contract and gratuitous contract is that the onerous needed to take care of the living needs of the individuals.
For instance if you go to a restaurant, the primary duties of the employees are to provide the service of bringing the foods, and the services, as for the cleanliness of the bathrooms, the food safety, these are, the gratuitous; like the fire at the karaoke, the owners of the place had not followed the fire safety rules, and broken the rules of the onerous obligations of keeping the customers safe.
But for this case, if the patient came to stay at the hospital, if the patients had checked in, and the hospital is held responsible, to stop fraternization of the patients, then, it would cause the hospitals need to separate the male and female patients in the wards, otherwise, the interactions, the friendships, the romances or even, sexual intercourses between the patients all became the hospitals’ responsibilities, and this can cause the hospital to get sued repeatedly for neglect, which wouldn’t be fair to the hospital at all.
The interactions of the patients are all, outside of the medical, and, as the families or the victims themselves wanted to keep the patients safe, they should, draw an alternative caretaking contract, instead of having the hospital take full responsibilities for what happens between the patients.
And so, based off of this, it would be, unfair, that the woman’s family SUED the hospital for allowing the man to have sex with her, after all, the woman IS an adult, with the ability to CONSENT to sex, despite that she’s, a mental patient, but the families felt that their loved one was, taken advantage of, and that’s why, they’re, suing the hospital, after all, we all expect quality service from a hospital we’re, checked into, right? But, is it, the hospital’s, the nursing staff’s, responsibilities, to make sure, that nobody’s, FRATERNIZING with anybody else? When did the nurses, the doctors become, BABYSITTERS, huh???