By P Mohan Chandran
In a world where every decision is under the microscope, where does the line between justice and medicine blur? When two judges, equipped with the same evidence, bound by the same laws, and possibly boasting similar educational backgrounds, interpret a situation as starkly different as night and day, one can't help but wonder: Are our systems flawed or is it the human element that introduces this variability?
Take the case of Bollywood superstar Salman Khan's hit-and-run incident. Two courts, one lower and one higher, had the exact same pieces of evidence. Yet, their verdicts were poles apart. This disparity raises a pressing question: If two judges can have such contrasting opinions on the same case, how infallible is our justice system?
Now, let's juxtapose this with the medical profession. Imagine a young, overworked doctor in a bustling government hospital diagnosing a celebrity with gastritis, only for a later diagnosis to reveal a myocardial infarction. The repercussions for the doctor would be immediate and severe. But why this disparity in accountability?
While a judge might take years, even decades, to deliver a verdict, a doctor is expected to make life-altering decisions in mere moments. If a doctor's misdiagnosis can lead to legal action, shouldn't a judge's misjudgment be held to the same standard? Why is it that hospitals can face legal consequences for not admitting underprivileged patients, yet courts with hundreds of thousands of pending cases face no such scrutiny?
The art of medicine, with its inherent uncertainties, often requires doctors to rely on their experience and intuition. In contrast, the law, a man-made construct, should theoretically be devoid of such ambiguities. Yet, doctors are held to an almost superhuman standard of perfection, while the judiciary often escapes scrutiny.
The societal responsibilities of doctors and the judiciary are undeniable. But while there's a public outcry over medical fees, the astronomical fees of renowned lawyers like Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Ram Jethmalani barely make a ripple in the media. Governments discuss capping medical fees, but where's the conversation about limiting legal fees?
If health is a fundamental right of every citizen, isn't justice too? As we navigate these complex terrains, it's worth pondering: Are we, as a society, guilty of selective outrage? And more importantly, isn't it time we re-evaluate who our real heroes are?
Do you think there should be the same standard of yardstick to evaluate a doctor and a judge?
A. Yes, both should have the same yardstick of measurement.
B. No, both professions require different yardsticks.
© 2023. P Mohan Chandran. All Rights Reserved.
25072023
Comments