January 20, 2007

"Ciomu's case is a dangerous precedent for all Romanian doctors."

"In future doctors may have to think very carefully about what work they undertake." Yes, you wouldn't want medical malpractice liability to get out of hand. We all make mistakes. (Via Metafilter.)

Interesting caption under the photo....


KCFleming said...

Crikey, he got just a fine and loss of his medical license?
What, ain't assault illegal in Romania anymore?

The Drill SGT said...

I think the common law term would be "maiming" rather than assault.

I would have taken his license away and put him in jail.

As I cross my legs and cringe while thinking about it.

Bruce Hayden said...

To be fair, this wasn't medical malpractice, but rather closer to an intentional tort. It might almost be feasible to negligently chop it off (like when they chop off the wrong guy's leg, or his wrong leg, etc.), but when he then goes and chops it up, that clearly evidences intent.

Bruce Hayden said...


I would guess both criminal assault and tort battery, but likely not tort assault, since the patient was likely out at the time.

Bissage said...

I’m going to assume that, under Romanian law, Dr. Ciomu has to pay “damages” out of his own pocket because he committed an intentional tort, as if he were in the U.S. and liable for punitive damages outside the scope of his malpractice coverage. If so, then the doctors’ unions’ argument isn’t so extraordinary as it might seem at first as it is akin to arguing heat of passion or intoxication or insanity. The important difference is that instead of being individuated, as it should be, the argument is categorical.

It’s sort of like a mother who says that Andrea Yates must have been insane because any mother who would kill her children must be insane. Or if I recall correctly, Kevin Barrett said that the 9/11 hijackers weren’t real muslims because Islam is a religion of peace. Here, the doctors’ unions seem to be arguing that they as a class would never intentionally harm a patient, and that Dr. Ciomu is a doctor, therefore, he could not have intentionally harmed his patient. The stress made him do it. And if any of us are ever accused of intentionally harming a patient, the stress (or something else) will have made us do it, too. Immunity by status.

Well, we can’t blame them for trying. After all, we all compete for scarce resources and there’s strength in numbers.

Okay, that’s enough of that. Here’s a video of someone better with a knife than Dr. Ciomu. If Yan can cook, you can too!

amba said...

The caption is really funny.

vbspurs said...

This is disgusting, and one of the least attractive aspects about being a medical doctor, which I really feared.

When you do damage to a patient ON PURPOSE, physicians band closer together than policemen working out a story about how the black perp got a massive welt on his face.

Quoting the article:

The medical costs will be paid by the hospital's insurer, but doctors' unions have criticised the decision that the money for the damages has to be paid by the doctor.

They say the move sets a dangerous precedent and that Professor Ciomu, a urologist and lecturer in anatomy, has already been punished enough after having his medical licence suspended.

Please. A walking embarrassment to the Hypocratic Oath and an University Professor, and all they say is, he's been punished enough. He didn't mean to Lorena Bobbit a patient under anaesthesia.

A travesty of a human being, and a joke for a professional response from his colleagues.

No wonder I hate unions, blech.


Anonymous said...

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow....

Daryl Herbert said...

I just want to know: if this was a woman's sex organs being hacked off and mutilated (in that order! yeesh!) if you'd think it's so funny to crack wise? And that the joke is about the penis being small: how much more obvious can the castration revelry be?

Anonymous said...

This place is crawling with lawyers. Isn't this considered, at least in the US, "mayhem"?