The recent story of an unfortunate death of a student(pic) being refused treatment at a private hospital has certainly stirred a debate. Was the private hospital right in refusing treatment when its rules of a deposit was not complied with? Or should it have put conscience above profit in this situation?

The Government is currently losing millions of ringgit in unpaid debts from hospital fees over the years. Despite the fact that many treatments are heavily subsidised, patients are, for unknown reasons, not paying up. Such costs are fortunately being absorbed on many occasions by the generosity of our government and indirectly the taxpayers.

Private hospitals are not immune to such recalcitrant patients. Therefore one method of avoiding patients from defaulting payment is to require an upfront deposit. It acts as an insurance for these private health ventures. Afterall, private hospitals are business ventures and have not been set up to fulfill social obligations. They are there to make a profit and will do all it can to ensure that it stays afloat. It is no different from other business ventures. The public should know that private hospitals require these payments before stepping through their doors. The alternative are the ever available government hospitals.

So was the private hospital right in refusing treatment to this critically ill patient?

For a patient with severe injuries, I would say that the hospital has erred. Knowing very well that the failure to institute prompt treatment will certainly result in death in this case where a student had been stabbed. Turning him away was not the right thing to do. He should have been treated and stabilised before being transferred to another facility. The staff on duty will forever have blood on his/her hands.

However, more stable cases should be made to pay the deposit to safeguard the interest of the hospital. For example, a patient with a minor viral ailment, should know the rules very well when he/she decided to present him/herself to a private center. Triaging patients is therefore important before payment is requested. Emergency and life-threatening conditions should be seen immediately before any talk of money is made.

Emotions will inevitable run high when an avoidable death occurs. Ultimately, the difference between what the right thing to do is and what constitutes the rights of these private hospitals can sometimes be blurred and highly contentious.

Links
Treat of lose licence (The Star)