A baby with a throat stuck in Suining, Jiangsu Province, died after waiting in the hospital for seven or eight hours without nucleic acid proof. No nucleic acid proof, no treatment? On May 3, in Suining, Jiangsu, the media reported that a one-and-a-half-year-old child had a foreign body stuck in his throat. Parents were sent to the hospital for treatment, and the hospital refused to treat them first on the grounds that there was no nucleic acid certificate, requiring that there must be nucleic acid results before treatment. After waiting for the nucleic acid results for seven or eight hours, the hospital did not take any treatment measures. At the strong request of the baby's family, the hospital installed an oxygen inhalation machine for the baby.

After the nucleic acid results came out, the hospital asked family members to take their children to Xuzhou for rescue. In the end, the child died before waiting for rescue. At present, it has been confirmed that the child died prematurely in the local area. Whether the delay caused by the hospital's refusal to consult is still under investigation. It is important to guard against epidemic situation, but when a life is in danger of death, flexible methods can be adopted: for example, isolating the ward, rescuing alone, rescuing first under the condition of taking protective measures, and doing a good job in nucleic acid testing at the same time, and releasing it if the results are normal.

The practice of this hospital is that there is no nucleic acid, no treatment and even no mitigation measures. What a mechanical epidemic prevention system. This practice violates the bounden duty of the hospital to heal the wounded and rescue the dying, and is even more illegal. The Regulations on the Administration of Medical Institutions clearly stipulates that medical institutions should immediately rescue critically ill patients.

As a doctor on duty, it is also against the practice regulations to face emergency patients and not actively treat them. Therefore, both medical institutions and individual doctors have a legal obligation to treat patients when they are engaged in medical diagnosis and treatment, rather than having the right to choose whether to save them or not, and they must be saved.

As a doctor, it is actually an inaction to deliberately refuse treatment knowing that the patient's life is in danger. Using this inaction to cause death, the behavior may even be suspected of indirect intentional homicide. It is indirect intention, because it does not actively pursue the death result, but lets it happen. The actor knows that his behavior of not actively treating may lead to the death of the patient, and subjectively allows it to happen, which in fact leads to death.

Bian Xiao's opinion, of course, there are some special circumstances in this case: no nucleic acid treatment, which may be the local epidemic prevention policy and the decision and order issued by the government under corporal punishment. Based on this situation, the mechanical execution of hospital doctors, although in line with the epidemic prevention policy, violates the obligation to save lives given by relevant laws.

Although criminal responsibility may be exempted, it is a serious dereliction of duty and a breach of contract to save lives. The relevant responsible person shall be investigated for administrative responsibility, and the family of the deceased shall be liable for compensation. We hope that in the face of the epidemic, the hospital can't lose its humanity, and it should do a good job of prevention, control and rescue flexibly and properly. What do you think of this?