"Bristow poisoned a victim with arsenic. The doctors wrongly diagnosed the symptoms. They thought that the ictim was suffering from alcoohlism. If the doctors had taken the proper steps, the toxic effects of the arsenic may have been stopped."
Who is responsible? The doctors or Bristow? I would suspect that the doctors would be responsible since they were the ones who broke the causal link that would originally have found Bristow guilty of manslaughter or murder.|||Bristow is still guilty of murder. Doctors may be separately liable for some sort of malpractice, but the doctors acts do not break the causal chain in your example.
Foreseeable consequences of the initial act are not considered intervening causes, and thus do not break the causal link, as you call it. And, courts routinely hold that negligent medical care is foreseeable.
So, to modify your fact pattern a little bit. Let's say Bristow administers arsenic with intent to kill. But, unbeknownst to him he does not administer enough to cause death. Victim is rushed to the hospital. Doctors try an experimental arsenic antidote, negligently adminster too much, and victim dies as a result. Victim would not have died if it were not for the doctor's negligence. Bristow is still guilty of murder, because negligent medical care in response to the deliberately harmful criminal act is considered foreseeable, and thus does not break the causal chain.|||In most cases given the information you have supplied they would all be considered to be "guilty" in this case. Bristow for poisoning someone could easily be charged with murder/attempted murder, the doctors could be charged with negligence to manslaughter depending on what transpired at the hospital and would be the subject of review by the medical board based on claims on incompitence.
Hope this helps.|||Yes though the doctors are to be charged, but the actual crime was committed by Bristow, so both should be charged but Bristow should get more punishment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment