A doctor instructs a patient to return for an examination after 12 hours, but the patient comes back after 6 hours in pain. What could work against the doctor's defense?

A doctor instructs a patient to return for an examination after 12 hours, but the patient comes back after 6 hours in pain. What could work against the doctor's defense?

• A. The patient did not follow directions
• B. The doctor asked the patient to return for a repeat exam
• C. The doctor treated the patient incorrectly
• D. The patient did not inform the doctor of the pain

Answer: (B)

The scenario describes a situation where a patient returned earlier than instructed due to experiencing pain. The defense argument for the doctor hinges on whether the doctor provided proper instructions and whether the patient's return was warranted based on those instructions. By stating that the doctor asked the patient to return for a repeat exam, it suggests that the doctor was actively engaged in ensuring the patient's care and was prepared to reassess the patient's condition. This involvement indicates that the doctor was not negligent and was taking the appropriate steps for patient safety and ongoing evaluation. In this context, the fact that the doctor had requested a return visit implies recognition of the patient's condition and an openness to further examination should the situation require it. Thus, this point strengthens the defense's position that the doctor was following proper medical protocol to monitor the patient rather than disregarding the patient’s well-being.

The scenario describes a situation where a patient returned earlier than instructed due to experiencing pain. The defense argument for the doctor hinges on whether the doctor provided proper instructions and whether the patient's return was warranted based on those instructions.

By stating that the doctor asked the patient to return for a repeat exam, it suggests that the doctor was actively engaged in ensuring the patient's care and was prepared to reassess the patient's condition. This involvement indicates that the doctor was not negligent and was taking the appropriate steps for patient safety and ongoing evaluation.

In this context, the fact that the doctor had requested a return visit implies recognition of the patient's condition and an openness to further examination should the situation require it. Thus, this point strengthens the defense's position that the doctor was following proper medical protocol to monitor the patient rather than disregarding the patient’s well-being.