新國蒙古大夫。。。

啊不然呢

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 02:37 AM
还是得看公司的。

你可以问问你公司看看。

目前还没入院过... *忙着找木动一动*
不过同事中骨痛热症，入院3天，在家休息近两个月..
没听他说需要什么特别申请，应该没问题

啊不然呢

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 02:34 AM
若是打995的话，应该只会送去政府医院吧？

除了医院的收费外，去对医院也很重要。例如小儿骨折问题，就在当天跑了ktph后，再去kkh检查一次；因为kkh有儿童骨科专家在那。结果是上了石膏不到两个小时（ktph） ...

外劳会去RH，也许公司和RH有合约，比如买了公司医药保险之类的

kcchiew

frankling 发表于 12-5-2016 10:33 AM
啊鹿很多时候都令人感觉很stockholm syndrome。动不动就跳出来为现有的体制辩护，哪怕是有不合理的地方。我觉得那是因为自己以往太不好，现在在新了就对新国太过崇拜了。我倒是越见mellow。也许是老了。但老鹿却是厉 ...

我是认为指责的对象很奇怪，为何是针对医生？ 而不是针对公司？

就算是医生给两天mc，公司不能自己决定吗？

就如小儿骨折的时候，学校老师还问说要不要更多天的休息日？很多时候不需要等医生来评估吧？


我在想，如果我生病的话，医生给两天mc，两天后我继续工作，4天后病情更严重，我该不该怪医生不给多我几天的mc？ 这里没有人碰过同样的情况吗？

kcchiew

啊不然呢 发表于 12-5-2016 10:43 AM
外劳会去RH，也许公司和RH有合约，比如买了公司医药保险之类的

嗯。。。。。有可能如你说的，看公司跟谁买保险。

NewFuture

總結是怪公司？
不是怪醫生？


公司沒有道德，
醫生沒有醫德。

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 12-5-2016 11:22 AM
總結是怪公司？
不是怪醫生？


公司沒有道德，
醫生沒有醫德。

你如果注意看的话，在客工申诉疼痛的那一天（11/sept），是发生意外（3/sept）后的第8天，而在7/sept医生刚刚复诊。

复诊时是客工不敢说自己痛吗？

这些都是我们应该问的事。

kcchiew

真的没有人感觉很奇怪吗？告医生没给更多mc？

看医生看了几次还看不好，我们有想过要告医生没给更多mc吗？


我还找不到法庭的审问记录，有没有医生跟公司勾结的证据？

NewFuture

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 11:39 AM
真的没有人感觉很奇怪吗？告医生没给更多mc？

看医生看了几次还看不好，我们有想过要告医生没给更多mc吗？


我还找不到法庭的审问记录，有没有医生跟公司勾结的证据？

你已經無可救藥了。。。
懶得跟你纏。

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 12-5-2016 11:43 AM
你已經無可救藥了。。。
懶得跟你纏。

你真的不怀疑，医生跟雇主“勾结”，结果只罚医生给不够多mc？ 有关当局轻轻放过雇主？
  

Loveshino

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 08:59 AM
什么时候，客工都能去莱佛士医院看医生了？

小儿两，三年前骨折，ktph也只给他两天mc。也许，学生跟客工不一样，应该要给多几天mc。

这判断应该让医生来做？客工有足够的mc拿吗（我一年只有14天，过后就扣l ...

我先生公司的客工意外多是到私人医院的。

夏日梦游草

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 08:59 AM
什么时候，客工都能去莱佛士医院看医生了？

小儿两，三年前骨折，ktph也只给他两天mc。也许，学生跟客工不一样，应该要给多几天mc。

这判断应该让医生来做？客工有足够的mc拿吗（我一年只有14天，过后就扣l ...

很想吐你槽，但看你楼上的回复和思考逻辑就觉得朽木的确不可雕.....
你应该已经很老了，老到只可以在你目前的公司终老，不然我会建议你跳出来，到外面去看看世界，不要以为世界只有那个鼻屎大！

kcchiew

夏日梦游草 发表于 12-5-2016 02:08 PM
很想吐你槽，但看你楼上的回复和思考逻辑就觉得朽木的确不可雕.....
你应该已经很老了，老到只可以在你目前的公司终老，不然我会建议你跳出来，到外面去看看世界，不要以为世界只有那个鼻屎大！

我公司的医药福利，真的不比其他公司好。。。。。

但我还是那个问题，医生跟雇主“勾结”，结果只罚医生给不够多mc？ 有关当局轻轻放过雇主？

（这应该才是逻辑思考吧？）

jellyfish_8

啊不然呢 发表于 12-5-2016 09:19 AM
不管你是什么国籍，你也只是一部机器，你要知道你来的目的，不是养病...
如果不能贡献了，请你别走，你躺着，然后... 滚~

这叫win-win, 互相利用，互惠互利

夏日梦游草

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 02:19 PM
我公司的医药福利，真的不比其他公司好。。。。。

但我还是那个问题，医生跟雇主“勾结”，结果只罚医生给不够多mc？ 有关当局轻轻放过雇主？

（这应该才是逻辑思考吧？[/backco ...

病假本来就是应该由医生对病人做出评估而开出的，关雇主什么事？
就算市场上雇主都会跟公司医生打过交道，病假不要太随便给，身为医者也得要用他专业的角度去评估，什么是随便，什么是方便；
外劳也是人家家的宝贝儿子丈夫兄弟， 草菅人命就应该被自己的随便付出代价。

建议你搜集证据，审问记录等，上书到有关当局，替医生讨回公道，让雇主也付出代价。
在这里和你打从心里就瞧不起的马劳耍嘴皮子，赢了你也不甚光彩！

kcchiew

夏日梦游草 发表于 12-5-2016 05:46 PM
病假本来就是应该由医生对病人做出评估而开出的，关雇主什么事？
就算市场上雇主都会跟公司医生打过交道，病假不要太随便给，身为医者也得要用他专业的角度去评估，什么是随便，什么是方便；
外劳也是人家家的宝 ...

请看第一楼：

。。。HOME发表声明，说正义总算得到伸张。声明说，之所以发起投诉，是担心医生会和雇主串通，故意不给工人病假，损害工人权益。 HOME说，近年来，已经发生多起类似的事件，他们也经常收到这样的投诉，让人忧虑。

该团体还尖锐地指出，医生和雇主的关系是“彼此依存且不道德”的。如果医生少给病人病假，雇主自然高兴，也愿意支付医疗服用并不断“输送”病人，这样医生的收入也能得到保证。。。。

在这种情况之下，若属实，你认为只有医生要被罚吗？

若我们的指责不属实，罚医生是公平的吗？

很多事不是我们想象那样才会发生的，但中间会不会有外来因素让我们失焦？或让法律判决荒腔走调？这才是我们需要小心的事。





（小儿最近在军营受伤，他一开始不敢去给军医看，因为军医会给好几天mc（不像电影形容的那样难kheng）。而每多一天mc就会影响他field camp的日期，他不想延迟field camp，结果他花更多时间治疗伤口。。。你看到这异曲同工的连接吗？  我当时不怪军医，不怪制度，只骂我儿子有病不看医生。）

夏日梦游草

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 06:10 PM
请看第一楼：

在这种情况之下，若属实，你认为只有医生要被罚吗？

若我们的指责不属实，罚医生是公平的吗？

很多事不是我们想象那样才会发生的，但中间会不会有外来因素让我们失焦？或让法律判决荒腔走调 ...

有关当局不是查了吗？没有证据啊，文中也只点名“担心医生会和雇主串通，故意不给工人病假，损害工人权益”
你是怀疑你们家的报章报导吗？ 所以才建议你去协助搜寻证据。

其实，我是牛来的，不要对我弹琴
回家了，拜拜！！

kcchiew

夏日梦游草 发表于 12-5-2016 06:22 PM
有关当局不是查了吗？没有证据啊，文中也只点名“担心医生会和雇主串通，故意不给工人病假，损害工人权益”
你是怀疑你们家的报章报导吗？ 所以才建议你去协助搜寻证据。

其实，我是牛来的，不要对我弹琴
回 ...

那一段是HOME说的，SMC只发这段新闻稿： DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL INQUIRY FOR DR WONG HIM CHOON AND COURT OF 3 JUDGES’ DECISION

只是看新闻稿的话，我真的感觉判决很“瞎”。

oldman_how

kcchiew 发表于 12-5-2016 12:42 PM
你真的不怀疑，医生跟雇主“勾结”，结果只罚医生给不够多mc？ 有关当局轻轻放过雇主？

医生不给多天的病假为什么要告雇主？ 如果没有医生证明，雇主那里可以自己做医生给mc？我看了突然吓一跳。。。他们怀疑的 “勾结”是纯粹算“生意”上来往的利益罢了。。

NewFuture

@kcchiew
看法官怎麼說。

蒙古大夫
http://m.todayonline.com/singapo ... bout-court-decision

Suspended surgeon showed ‘indifference’ to patient’s welfare


SINGAPORE — The Raffles Hospital surgeon who was suspended from practice for not granting adequate hospitalisation leave to an injured construction worker was “advancing the interests of the employer” and wanted the patient back at work as early as possible.

On top of that, Dr Wong Him Choon also showed no remorse and sought to lay the blame on the patient, Mr Fan Mao Bing, for failing to manage his recovery adequately.

These aggravating factors were cited by the Court of Three Judges in its written grounds of decision on the landmark case, which was released on Wednesday (July 27).

Explaining the court’s decision in a 53-page judgment, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang had strong words for Dr Wong, noting that the evidence showed that he had chosen not to give the patient medical leave for “a multitude of extraneous, less than proper, as well as non-medical considerations”.

Dr Wong’s lawyer, Mr S Selvaraj, had sought to make the point that the orthopaedic surgeon, who had “dealt with foreign workers”, had good reason to suspect that Mr Fan, by being a foreign construction worker, would not be adequately rested if he was not supervised.

Dr Wong, when giving evidence, had also said: “What’s the difference of him going to office and him hanging around Geylang, which he obviously has gone several time(s) ... If when [sic] you put the patient in the dormitory there is no supervised rest.”

Commenting on the argument made by Mr Selvaraj, Justice Phang, who heard the case with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, said: “In our judgment, this was an illegitimate and outrageous submission that should never have been made before this court.”

He also said Dr Wong’s testimony suggested that the surgeon thought foreign construction workers were to be “treated differently from other patients”. “We wish to emphasise in no uncertain terms that this is utterly wrong. The doctor’s first priority is to ensure the patient’s care and welfare,” said Justice Phang.

The case dates back to Sept 4, 2011, when Dr Wong operated on Mr Fan’s right hand, after the Chinese national fell from a height at a construction site and sustained hand and forearm fractures. He then issued a medical certificate for two days — which covered Mr Fan’s hospital stay from Sept 3 and 4 — and certified him fit for light duties for a month thereafter.

Mr Fan continued to experience pain thereafter, and migrant worker group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics later filed a complaint with medical watchdog Singapore Medical Council (SMC).

A disciplinary tribunal acquitted Dr Wong on the basis that SMC had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Wong’s departure from the “applicable standard of conduct was intentional and deliberate”.

After the SMC appealed against this, the Court of Three Judges, which hears appeals against disciplinary tribunal decisions, dismissed the acquittal and suspended Dr Wong from practice for six months in May.  

Justice Phang said Dr Wong’s failure to grant Mr Fan medical leave, at the very least till his post-operative review three days after surgery, showed a “wilful disregard for (Mr Fan’s) welfare and interests, and in particular, his need for proper rest and rehabilitation”.

This is despite the fact that he said the hospital granted patients medical leave until the post-operative appointment.

When asked why he did not do so for Mr Fan, Dr Wong “suggested — incredibly, in our view — that this was because he wanted to give the patient the chance to try whether there was anything he could do at work and not give the patient the impression that his condition was serious”, noted Justice Phang.

NewFuture

Dr Wong, who also certified Mr Fan fit for light work without establishing if such duties were available at the firm where he worked, showed an “indifference” to Mr Fan’s welfare by leaving it to the employer to decide the extent to which he should rest, and appeared keen in “maximising the value that the employer could extract” from him, Justice Phang said.

Justice Phang also said the disciplinary tribunal, in acquitting Dr Wong, had “slipped into error” by focusing on whether the surgeon had knowledge that light duties were unavailable at his workplace.

Raffles Hospital did not respond to TODAY’s request for comment by press time.