Physics Forums

Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   It is illegal to drive a pig over London bridge (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116834)

Schrodinger's Dog Apr7-06 04:33 AM

It is illegal to drive a pig over London bridge
 
It is illegal to drive a pig over London bridge and it is also illegal to set off a nuclear weapon in the city limits of LA.It is perfectly legal to shoot someone from Wales with a crossbow should they be found in the county of shropshire on the weekend.

I'm generally pretty law abiding and I try to obey the rules and protocols of whatever job I'm in but there are some pretty scarey people I have met that take anal beureaucracy to untold heights. Now I'm not a rebel you know, I will use common sense if a rule doesn't fit a situation, whatever works do it but some people will follow a rule that can cause damage simply because that is the rule. I'm talking the Central Beureacracy type mentality of Futurama, or the information retrieval type mentality from Brazil, you know idiots :smile:

Anyway here's an example of just someone being too too anal for their own good, a Jobsworth. I once had a situation where a piece of medical equipments insulation had come lose so that it's inner insualtion was showing slightly and as is procedure we send it for repair( who knows when the inner insulation is going to wear and present a risk to patient or staffs health, this is common sense) however on entering a discussion with a colleaugue about it we ended discussing if there was a scenario were you could say get away from this and do something else, you know how idle conversations develop and of course I took the discussion to the logical extreme, what if this piece of equipment was needed imediately to keep said patient alive, would you jury rig a bit of electrical tape over the area and let them continue using it assuming there was no alternative? My coleague said no he would take it out of use because that is the rule? And I said, you'd kill someone rather than break the rule? And he said yes, he would let the patient die( naturaly I was somewhat horrified and I pressed him on it which lead to a fairly heated discussion with weighty reference to ethics and moral rule) Thinking he was obviously an exception to the rule of common sense I asked around the department and everyone I met said they would do the jury rig thing and then take it out of service later when they could. My colleague reported this to my boss, who agreed with him that it would be better to let the patient die rather than put people at a potential risk, I said that single insulation is not a risk, didn't matter?

My question is have you met people like this, you know rule judges and jobsworths. People who when asked why they massacred 700 people would say "I was just following orders", morons basically,:rofl: not suggesting that my boss or colleague are morons, they aren't at all, misguided and somewhat beureacratic maybe

I could bore you with a million and one odd rules that cause more damage than they solve but I wont.

EDIt: Oh and all PF rules are eminmently sensible and fair btw,

JasonRox Apr7-06 07:44 AM

It depends how extreme you put it sometimes too.

It seems pretty crazy that this guy and boss would still follow the rules even if it means death.

I know what you mean though. Although there are rules, you should do what is best for yourself and the community.

TheStatutoryApe Apr7-06 08:22 AM

There's a matter of insurance. The boss at least has to say that the rules should be followed due to insurance issues. If a patient were possibly going to die and you had 'faulty' equipment so did not use it insurance can not come after you. If you use the faulty equipment and the person some how dies because of it it's your head on a platter.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr7-06 08:44 AM

Specious reasoning because the patient will die without it. What have you got to lose? If you followed the rules and let someone die anyway, what sort of human being would that make you? A pretty immoral human being I would say. You could just as easily get sued for failing to give proper treatment in this situation anyway, it could be reasoned since their was no apreciable risk and that you could of used your common sense that you were criminally negligent.

Iin this case it wasn't the motivation of either the boss or my colleague that insurance was an issue, it was simple adherence to the rules.

Jimmy Snyder Apr7-06 09:35 AM

Is this really a fit topic for these fora?

It's a joke. I hope someone gets it.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr7-06 10:30 AM

I thought it was a general area where you could talk about anything, pardon me if that's not the case. Maybe I could of reworded it and put it in the philosophy section?

Jimmy Snyder Apr7-06 11:45 AM

Quote:

Quote by Schrodinger's Dog
I thought it was a general area where you could talk about anything.

I sent you a private message.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr8-06 05:48 AM

What is this Earth emotion you call humour:rofl: . OK who called the thought police?

scott_alexsk Apr8-06 12:52 PM

I did. I must retain my upper class benefits by supressing you.

TheStatutoryApe Apr9-06 04:56 PM

Quote:

Quote by Schrodinger's Dog
Specious reasoning because the patient will die without it. What have you got to lose? If you followed the rules and let someone die anyway, what sort of human being would that make you? A pretty immoral human being I would say. You could just as easily get sued for failing to give proper treatment in this situation anyway, it could be reasoned since their was no apreciable risk and that you could of used your common sense that you were criminally negligent.

Iin this case it wasn't the motivation of either the boss or my colleague that insurance was an issue, it was simple adherence to the rules.

Personally I would agree and use the equipment anyway if I believed it to be safe to use regardless of whatever minor defect.
The issue for the boss however is different. Generally a boss must at the least pay lip-service to the rules and regulations.
As for the law and possibilities of getting sued I just saw that you are in England so I'm not sure just how such a case may fall out there and what sort of legal precidents there are. I would suspect that they are at least similar to US legalities though. Here if someone does everything by the book there is very little possibility that they can be successfully sued. Anyone can sue anyone else for just about any reason so the idea that one can be sued for following rules is pretty much meaningless, it's the possibility of success that really matters. That's why those policies exist in the first place and that's why 'simple adherence to the rules' has everything to do with insurance and liability matters.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr10-06 02:32 AM

Yes I can at least see that my boss was following procedure, but you can be pretty sure if She or he had behaved that way they would get sued for negligence regardless of what the rules are supposed to be. To let someone die and still be in the clear in this situation is a traversty of law, and I really doubt that the courts would condone that sort of behaviour at least in this country.

Things aren't that simple in a hospital, life and death are a serious business and the willful disregard for rules in situations happens some times according to the situation, patients and there problems don't follow procedure.

I would be surprised if following procedure in America got you off scott free, if that is indeed the case then it encourages people to do all sorts of morally dubious nonsense and abuse the rules to any extent as long as they follow procedure, somewhat Kafkaeusque I would say :eek: Laws were made to be broken. Clearly this means that no rule is absolute and no law is 100% just. A law that cannot allow for flexability or cannot change is immoral.

Quote:

Quote by scott_alexsk
I did. I must retain my upper class benefits by supressing you.

Ok I guess it's off to the Ministry of Love for re-education then :eek::cry:

arildno Apr10-06 06:01 AM

Quote:

Quote by Schrodinger's Dog
It is perfectly legal to shoot someone from Wales with a crossbow should they be found in the county of shropshire on the weekend.

Sounds like a very reasonable law. Welshmen are fishy.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr10-06 06:14 AM

Indeed but apparently only at weekends? Perhaps it's the religious implications of a celt covered in woad that lead to the law, decent christians might be put off their communion wafer? Or perhaps the welsh are renowned for getting drunk and waylaying strangers at weekends? Agreed though very strange people?:biggrin:

arildno Apr10-06 06:24 AM

Since the conquered Welsh had no business getting out of their slave pens on weekends*, they were most probably runaway slaves and deserved to be shot.
Particularly in Shropshire.



*(they couldn't be set to work the fields then, could they?)

loseyourname Apr10-06 07:00 AM

Quote:

Quote by Schrodinger's Dog
EDIt: Oh and all PF rules are eminmently sensible and fair btw,

You're damn right they are, boy.

Schrodinger's Dog Apr10-06 08:33 AM

Quote:

Quote by loseyourname
You're damn right they are, boy.

But isn't that what they programmed you to think :wink: :tongue:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums