The rapid changes in the versions of the investigation report on the death of an infant at Nanjing Children's Hospital in Jiangsu Province has left people astonished. The patient was admitted to the children's hospital at noon on November 3, and died the next morning. Family members claimed that the on-duty doctor "wanted to sleep" and was busy stealing vegetables online, which delayed the rescue opportunity. After this incident gained attention online and in the media, on November 10, the health departments of Jiangsu Province and Nanjing City jointly released news adopting the investigation conclusion of Nanjing Children's Hospital: the doctor was organizing a paper, not playing the "stealing vegetables" game. This is referred to as "Investigation Conclusion V1.0".
It is called "Investigation Conclusion V1.0" instead of the Bata version because it was jointly released by the provincial and municipal health departments, equivalent to stamping its regularity.
However, "Investigation Conclusion V1.0" has raised significant doubts. Therefore, there was another joint investigation team including experts, netizens, and media representatives. Without much effort, on November 12, a new version of "Investigation Conclusion V2.0" was launched. This time, there was no longer the explanation that the doctor was organizing a paper; instead, the doctor was playing Go online during the shift.
Although the doctor playing games on duty cannot be said to be the reason for the patient's death, it is absolutely unacceptable according to professional responsibilities. The cause of the patient's death requires medical explanation; but procedurally, the hospital has absolute fault, and the doctor has absolute post responsibility.
People have noticed the necessity of the neutrality of investigators through these two investigations. Now, generally the first choice is for the unit itself or a higher authority to investigate, both similar to "self-inspection", making it difficult to gain the trust of the parties involved and society, often adding twists and amplifying disputes.
Xinhua News Agency journalists noticed the "attitude problem", believing that the hospital's investigation was not recognized because the indifferent attitude of the doctor towards the sick child became the focus of public attention, and the hospital failed to respond to this.
Certainly, the indifferent attitude of the doctor has pricked the public nerve, and the hospital's protection of the doctor has elevated the indifferent attitude to the hospital level. However, the investigation is not for verifying impressions about attitudes. The hospital's investigation was not recognized not because it could not verify the public's judgment about the doctor's indifferent attitude, but whether the facts it presented had any suspicious points. What people need is always the truth, not materials for proving attitudes.
The hidden meaning behind "Investigation Conclusion V1.0" is worth paying attention to, and this hidden meaning also corresponds to the confused social cognition. "The doctor was organizing a paper, not playing games," this statement, whether made by the doctor himself or the hospital, is appealing to the public's different evaluations of corresponding behaviors. It can be said that the common understanding between the investigators and the public is that doctors playing games on duty is more infuriating than organizing papers.
Our society tends to divide behaviors into "main business" and "not focusing on main business". In any situation, writing papers has a positive connotation, is a high-ranking "main business", while playing games has a negative connotation, is "not focusing on main business". Although this is a social standard, does this classification and ranking of the size of behavioral values make sense?
Writing papers and playing games essentially have no distinction of superiority or inferiority. Both can be professions, and both can be personal interests. As a profession, there is no distinction of nobility or meanness; as an interest, there is no distinction of superiority or inferiority. Doctors on duty are not allowed to write papers or play games. When doctors are not on duty, they can freely write papers or play games. Whether the on-duty doctor is writing papers or playing games, there is no difference in nature. For a medical accident, one cannot say that a doctor working on a paper may benefit society, while playing games is just for entertainment, so it is somewhat forgivable; these two behaviors should arouse equal anger.
In reality, not being on duty due to organizing papers seems more legitimate than not being on duty due to playing games. People feel that organizing papers on duty is not as infuriating as playing games, which is why "Investigation Conclusion V1.0" denies playing games. It reflects a social consciousness about the hierarchy of behavioral values, but it is not correct.
Unless there is another particularly urgent situation, on-duty doctors must be present. Playing games is not worse than organizing papers, and organizing papers is not more legitimate than playing games. Investigating whether the doctor was on duty or not is just to obtain the truth, not to decide our different attitudes towards dereliction of duty.
Now, we can confirm that "Investigation Conclusion V1.0" is not true. If it was intentional, then it is lying; if unintentional, then it is the investigator's dereliction of duty. The health departments of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing City, and Nanjing Children's Hospital do not know what to say about this.
Date: 2009-11-13