Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Food for thought

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My thoughts precisely

Thor Tandy  P.Eng
Victoria BC

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Brown <mike.brown(--nospam--at)cshqa.com>
To: seaoc <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:58 AM
Subject: Food for thought


>I went to a Doctor the other day to see about getting a deviated septum repaired.  We went over the procedure with explanations on what would happen and the benefits of making the repairs.  I was now ready to make the appointment and go through with the operation.
>
>However, I was then sent to a person to discuss money and liability. 
>During this process I was suppose to sign a waiver of liability which
>basically stated that if the procedure did not work, too bad.  I wouldn't
>even get my money back.
>
>So, I was just thinking.  Why couldn't we do that?  Just have our clients
>sign a waiver stating that if a building had a structural failure, then too
>bad, it just wasn't ment to be.
>
>Of course I know that this is unethical, impractical, bad for business and the profession, etc.  But how come the medical profession can get away with this type of treatment?  I understand that there is a lot of lawsuits filed against physicians, but there are a lot of lawsuits filed against engineers as well.  I just believe that if you say you are going to provide a service, you provide that service.
>
>Maybe I'm just missing something.