Doctor penalised for failing to assist after car crash

[Barefoot Dave]

Note: they weren't involved in the crash.
What do you think?
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24958870/doctors-uneasy-about-aid-rule/

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Totally unreasonable sanction on the medico.

Every basic life support course starts with an acronym along the lines of DRABC, the first letter D = danger, it was a dark dangerous place, the vehicle that nearly ran her off the road may have been an attempt to abduct her or something. R = Respond, it is important to get professional responders "with equipment" on the way, the medico didn't have a phone so went to the Police.

It is why very few medicos now have their cars plated with the Maltese Cross and snake device.

[Tote]

Agreed, every First aid course I've done makes the point that your safety is more important than being a hero and that being first aid qualified is not a compulsion to assist.
Who'd a thunk that the AMA was out of touch......

Regards,
Tote

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Agreed, every First aid course I've done makes the point that your safety is more important than being a hero and that being first aid qualified is not a compulsion to assist.
Who'd a thunk that the AMA was out of touch......

Regards,
ToteIt was the Medical Board of W.A., a Government controlled office, but now replaced by a National Medical Board under AHPRA (also Government).

One wonders however, if there's any other information that we're not being told?

[sam_d]

One wonders however, if there's any other information that we're not being told?

Almost a certainty given the new source in this case. Why bother with the facts etc...

[korg20000bc]

Doctors aren't first aiders- they are medical professionals. I would expect that they are required to render aid.
I'm not sure Australian doctors swear the "Hypocratic Oath"at all but if they do and break it they are malpracticing their profession and should be held accountable.

It might be argued that they were caring for their own life by not providing assistance but it seems craven to me.

Rendering aid at the possible risk to one's self seems like an admirable and virtuous thing- an opportunity to learn courage that not everyone gets.

But, I grew up on Tolkien and Star Trek so what would I know...

[roverrescue]

Ive worked with a lot of radiologists in my time...
I would not want a radiologist doing first aid on me !

Just saying

s

[Lotz-A-Landies]

This medico was a radiologist, an expert at looking at X-Ray images. She may not have "treated" a patient physically in years and in her practice she is used to operating machines plus having paramedical staff and nurses "treat" and manipulate the patient.

A trained and current first aider would likely be better able to manage the first aid situation until professional first responders arrived.

If the medico was an emergency physician or intensivist or even a GP, my opinion would likely be different.

[TD50WA]

Roebourne.......I probably can't say too much about it without getting into trouble, but it's waaaay up north in WA and at the time of the incident, WAS known for its alcohol and violence issues.
Think location.......understand the population and environment....;)

I don't blame any woman for doing what she did, regardless of occupation. I think she did exactly the right thing.

Cheers
Kev

[korg20000bc]

"Sorry, I actually haven't used my training in years so hold tight and try to keep yourself alive until I get to the police station and let them know... Oh, sorry, you died..."

[TD50WA]

"Sorry, I actually haven't used my training in years so hold tight and try to keep yourself alive until I get to the police station and let them know... Oh, sorry, you died..."

Alternative situation:

Car full of drunk males (high probability for location), " hey fellas look, a pretty little woman for our fun and enjoyment"......

Just think of your wife/daughter/mother in that situation......as was said before- first letter of first aid response is D for danger.

[rick130]

"Sorry, I actually haven't used my training in years so hold tight and try to keep yourself alive until I get to the police station and let them know... Oh, sorry, you died..."

We're big enough and in some situations, tough enough to look after ourselves, but think small woman, dark road, potentially alcohol and/or drugged and possibly very aggressive 'victims'.

All the women I know are terrified of that situation, my partner has been on the receiving end in a country ED where she's the only person there, plus a couple of other nurses in other parts of the hospital (and 'Security' was a 60yo female cleaner)
That is a far more controlled situation and she was shaken by the experience.

A dark road at the top end of WA and a lone white woman....

[TD50WA]

We're big enough and in some situations, tough enough to look after ourselves, but think small woman, dark road, potentially alcohol and/or drugged and possibly very aggressive 'victims'.

All the women I know are terrified of that situation, my partner has been on the receiving end in a country ED where she's the only person there, plus a couple of other nurses in other parts of the hospital (and 'Security' was a 60yo female cleaner)
That is a far more controlled situation and she was shaken by the experience.

A dark road in the night at the top end of WA and a lone white woman....

Exactly.....

[RSS News Robot]

http://www.aulro.com//t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnBA_XQ66a-97l_k1w1SNgZfiBPSzsmJaoF8b9WxfSQxaDFyrrXda_N0o6xrh ZXKISBxc1JRo
The West Australian (http://news.google.com/news/url'sa=t&fd=R&ct2=au&usg=AFQjCNHE7YTTPfP_-EBf761ZQDikffZ_3g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=Rh4RVIiMCcW5lAWj34HABA&url=https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24958870/doctors-uneasy-about-aid-rule/)
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />
Doctors uneasy about aid rule (http://news.google.com/news/url'sa=t&fd=R&ct2=au&usg=AFQjCNHE7YTTPfP_-EBf761ZQDikffZ_3g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=Rh4RVIiMCcW5lAWj34HABA&url=https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24958870/doctors-uneasy-about-aid-rule/)
The West Australian
In November, the tribunal found Dr Leila Dekker guilty of improper conduct because she did not stop to offer assistance when an out-of-control Land Rover narrowly missed her car near Roebourne and rolled into a ditch. Dr Dekker told the tribunal she ...

[/URL]


[url=http://news.google.com/news/url'sa=t&fd=R&ct2=au&usg=AFQjCNHE7YTTPfP_-EBf761ZQDikffZ_3g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=Rh4RVIiMCcW5lAWj34HABA&url=https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24958870/doctors-uneasy-about-aid-rule/]More... (http://news.google.com.au/news/more?ncl=dwVOLZlkq0gbBmM&authuser=0&ned=au)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

"Sorry, I actually haven't used my training in years so hold tight and try to keep yourself alive until I get to the police station and let them know... Oh, sorry, you died..."O.K lets analyse your comment. The radiologist may have only done one year as an intern before moving to the radiology specialty and there is no guarantee that in that year she actually worked in an emergency department.
Since that time she has been surrounded by multi million dollar machines and trained staff so had no need to lay hands on patients.
The location of the event was dark and dangerous.
She had no phone.
How long would she have to be treating the bunch of possibly drunken individuals in the crashed vehicle until professional first responders arrived? (Remember she has not called for help.)

[korg20000bc]

Of course I understand her decision!
She chose the safe and sensible thing to do.
If one of my daughters did as she did I'd say the same thing.
But, if one of my kids, in that situation, went and at least checked if the person was alright even though they'd assessed the situation as potentially dangerous I'd really applaud their courage.

Even ****** and arseholes are humans and it effects us how we treat them.

Also, it could have been a grandmother with 3 kids in the car who was having a heart attack...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Of course I understand her decision!
She chose the safe and sensible thing to do.
If one of my daughters did as she did I'd say the same thing.
But, if one of my kids, in that situation, went and at least checked if the person was alright even though they'd assessed the situation as potentially dangerous I'd really applaud their courage.

Even ****** and arseholes are humans and it effects us how we treat them.

Also, it could have been a grandmother with 3 kids in the car who was having a heart attack...And it could have been Mohamed Elomar and Khaled Sharrouf or his mates in the car.

[TD50WA]

Guys, it could have been anyone, agreed, but with any assessment, it is based upon time, place and circumstance, and having been thru that area and worked up North, the chances were that it was more than likely a car full of drunks, not a granny and kids.

If this was just outside Perth, different circumstances, yes and she should have stopped, but it wasn't.

It's very easy to condemn afterwards - the old armchair umpire as it were, but when it's you having to make that decision at the time, it's a different story.....

All emergency services personnel, and first aid people are taught that number one priority is your own safety, then any victims with property a distant last.

We are making this argument on no information on who was actually in the car, but my experience makes me believe I might have done the same thing as her anyway.

[BMKal]

Guys, it could have been anyone, agreed, but with any assessment, it is based upon time, place and circumstance, and having been thru that area and worked up North, the chances were that it was more than likely a car full of drunks, not a granny and kids.

If this was just outside Perth, different circumstances, yes and she should have stopped, but it wasn't.

It's very easy to condemn afterwards - the old armchair umpire as it were, but when it's you having to make that decision at the time, it's a different story.....

All emergency services personnel, and first aid people are taught that number one priority is your own safety, then any victims with property a distant last.

We are making this argument on no information on who was actually in the car, but my experience makes me believe I might have done the same thing as her anyway.

You and me both Kev. ;)

I was working not too far from Roebourne back in those days, and no way I'd be stopping in those circumstances either, unless I could easily light up the vehicle and be pretty sure of what / who was inside, and that there was not "company" around in the form of another vehicle etc.

[korg20000bc]

And it could have been Mohamed Elomar and Khaled Sharrouf or his mates in the car.

Yep, even those guys might need assistance sometime.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yep, even those guys might need assistance sometime.But they're not people to lose your head over.

[TD50WA]

You know, the down side to this (excluding the death of course) is that by punishing the doctor, it won't make potential first aiders stop and render assistance in fear they might get punished if they don't, it will stop people from becoming involved at all.....they will just drive on and not even report it....if asked they will just say "what crash".....

[Barefoot Dave]

Prima facea, i agree with the majority of views；
Docs risk analysis came out as High and she sought appropriate assistance
A radiologist is not likely to be an effective first aider, let alone paramedic equivalent

What stuns me is that the accident was in 2002!Hardly a reasonable timeframe for an investigation like this.

[rangietragic]

She was not a "doctor" for all intents and purposes.When doing one of my first aid courses i was very surprised to be told some doctors have been enrolled in first aid courses:confused:Maybe they are out of practice with that aspect of medicine after years of taking temperatures and going "say ahhh"

[EastFreo]

Doctor or not you still have to apply a reasonable test and I seriously challenge anyone who has been up there to say they would do differently. In the article she went to the police and that was the right thing to do.

[Kevin B]

Totally unreasonable sanction on the medico.

Every basic life support course starts with an acronym along the lines of DRABC, the first letter D = danger, it was a dark dangerous place, the vehicle that nearly ran her off the road may have been an attempt to abduct her or something. R = Respond, it is important to get professional responders "with equipment" on the way, the medico didn't have a phone so went to the Police.

It is why very few medicos now have their cars plated with the Maltese Cross and snake device.

Actually R= Response , determine the injured persons level of response to stimuli and assess there level of consciousness.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Actually R= Response , determine the injured persons level of response to stimuli and assess there level of consciousness.And it is also taught to get a response under way, there is no point in single person first aid/resuscitation if the rescuer fatigues without having assistance on the way.

Also
The SAFE approach
S = Shout for help
A = Approach with care
F = Free from danger
E = Evaluate ABC Some teach it as "shout and shake, to both elicit a response from the casualty and get a response underway. (Although the shake is problematic as some rescuers are over enthusiastic)

If Unresponsive
• Shout for help;
• Note the time;
• Assess Airway, Breathing and Circulation;
• When more than one rescuer is present, one person should start BLS whilst the other should dial the emergency number for your facility or service; www.seslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/.../SESIH-Paediatric-BLS-Theoretical-Gui...

[boa]

The best first aid course I ever had was when I worked at Ford. It was run buy two ambulance offices. One was actually a doctor but liked ambulance work. It was mainly play acting you were confronted with a situation and had to act accordingly it was a 4 day high intensity course. One thing the doctor said was the last thing you need is a general practice doctor on the scene. It was at the Ford proving ground. But also having worked up north in her situation she did the right thing.

[WhiteD3]

To read the ruling search for Leila Dekker here

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/main.xsp

[Barefoot Dave]

Thanks MR d3.
Insult AND injury.
Pay costs of $35,000!!

[uninformed]

So Korg, you are quick to judge this person for her actions as you know them, yet you say even scum need help.....

dont you find that conflicting

[Bigbjorn]

Qld. used to have a charge of "showed callous disregard" which was usually applied to someone who left the scene of an accident without ascertaining whether there were injuries and was assistance required. Normally the charge was applied to hit and run drivers or drunk drivers who left the scene.

[Tombie]

So Korg, you are quick to judge this person for her actions as you know them, yet you say even scum need help.....



dont you find that conflicting


I think it's more lack of exposure to those types of situation and environment.

Unless someone has seen the reality of these regions, they may not understand the dynamic risk!

[korg20000bc]

So Korg, you are quick to judge this person for her actions as you know them, yet you say even scum need help.....

dont you find that conflicting

Sorry if I came across that way.
I don't get your question exactly but I'll have a go at answering.

It is myopinion that everyone has a moral obligation to help as best they can if someone needs help. From the brief description of the situation in the original article she didn't even check to see if anyone was hurt. I understand she was fearful of her safety but, at least to my mind, that doesn't trump her obligation to help someone in a possibly life-threatening accident.

I don't like the precedent that it could set- that people make a decision whether or not to help someone based on fear.

If I was getting my head punched in by a couple of blokes when I was at an ATM I'd want someone to help me regardless of how safe they felt.

There's been a thread recently where someone went to the aid of someone who was being attacked by a shark and Ean (I thin it was) related a time when he was saved by a friend from a crocodile. Heroic stuff!

Maybe (because we don't have the whole story), if this lady had been able to at least check the vehicle, she'd've been able to save someone's life.

I'm not saying she did the wrong thing, but I don't reckon she did the right or best thing.

[korg20000bc]

I think it's more lack of exposure to those types of situation and environment.

Unless someone has seen the reality of these regions, they may not understand the dynamic risk!
Wrong. What do you know about me or my experience with dangerous situations?

[UncleHo]

Has anyone thought that,(1) maybe she didn't have any first aid gear on board,(2) she did not have gloves to prevent AIDS,(3) by going to the next town she could summon the correct response teams.

[korg20000bc]

Has anyone thought that,(1) maybe she didn't have any first aid gear on board,(2) she did not have gloves to prevent AIDS,(3) by going to the next town she could summon the correct response teams.

That's what I suppose I'm trying to get at- that if people's first reaction is to think of reasons why they can't or shouldn't help someone else no-one will do anything to assist when someone needs it. We can always think of powerful reasons not to act.

Great help/assistance can be given without having all the things you'd like to have on hand. Even just holding someone's hand while they conk out is better than a lot of other options.

[Tombie]

I'll have a go at a response...

Again, you've obviously never been in these areas...
Me and a few other 'big' boys were cautious enough when in these areas at night.

I've had to render assistance to a young woman being harassed and threatened in these environments.

Would I, at night, alone, stop by a vehicle in the same situation in these areas... Not likely.

Utopia doesn't actually exist. These are real threatening situations.

As for at an ATM getting pounded... Many a Good Samaritan has been stabbed, maimed or killed trying to step in in recent years...
I'd have to weigh it up... So you may or may not be on your own until they leave (I would then help regardless)

[korg20000bc]

I'll have a go at a response...

Again, you've obviously never been in these areas...
Me and a few other 'big' boys were cautious enough when in these areas at night.

I've had to render assistance to a young woman being harassed and threatened in these environments.

Would I, at night, alone, stop by a vehicle in the same situation in these areas... Not likely.

Utopia doesn't actually exist. These are real threatening situations.

As for at an ATM getting pounded... Many a Good Samaritan has been stabbed, maimed or killed trying to step in in recent years...
I'd have to weigh it up... So you may or may not be on your own until they leave (I would then help regardless)

Cheers mate, any assistance, even after the beating, would be appreciated.

[THE BOOGER]

You don't have to be in the middle of now here for that it happens in the city too:(

Police name shooting suspect - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/18/1182018972430.html)

She did what I would and have told both my girls to do drive to the nearest police station:)

[shanegtr]

Both myself and my wife have had ultrasounds done by Dr Dekker when we where living in Karratha. That accident happened just outside an aboriginal community, and yes at the time there was (and still is) an alcohol problem in the area. The drive to the police station from there is less than 5mins drive. She's not the youngest person around either so I think what she done was perfectly reasonable. My wife said she wouldn't have stopped there either in that circumstance.

[Greatsouthernland]

Actually R= Response , determine the injured persons level of response to stimuli and assess there level of consciousness.

Exactly. The "first" on scene is the first aider, you should do what you can and the good samaritan law applies to all, not just doctors.

When someone more qualified arrives, they take over and you assist. You send someone else to get assistance, not leave the victim, sometimes it is as simple as tilting the head back on an unconscious slumped forward patient, reopening the airway and if there is no other major issue, youve saved them, leave them slumped for two minutes, its often too late.

R is for Response not get a responder, simply put, you dont commence ABC until youve tried to get a response, in some situations (i was taught) person may be asleep and you open their mouth to check for obstructions, embarrassing situation when they wake and find you poking around...:o

The story of the accident sounds dodgy to me and theres no second opinion as that person died, seems strange that she drove up embankment to avoid supposed out of control vehicle, narrowly missed her behind...when? Whilst she was in the intersection? Anyway I cant conclude that she didnt contribute to the accident and the details are bloody thin...that puts a different light on it IMHO. Didn't have her phone? Yeh right, if the place is as dodgy as others say, and I agree it is as Ive been nearby, then why wasnt she carrying a phone in case she broke down or otherwise needed help, doesnt make sense, especially as a medico, may even be on call???

Why couldnt it be safe to lock her doors and drive up to the crashed vehicle and at least assess the situation without putting herself in danger, i.e. she can still drive slowly and look, booting it if needed, maybe wind the window down and yell out "are you Ok?".

Internet story is probably just a publicity stunt from AMA to support some other impending decision or proposed change to legislation, as the event was 2002 and decision 2009, they're clutching at straws for something else, we will probably hear about in 5 years time.

My thoughts go to the victim, nothing I read indicates drunk or out of control before the interaction/avoidance at the intersection.

Yes I have a mum, wife and daughter, Im thinking if they were out alone without their phones Id be questioning why...Id also like to think that if they were to run off the road in a similar situation, that the other party would check before leaving the scene, regardless of the fact they went to the police station, just seems odd, even with the known native issues....just going by the facts and statements as limited as they are.

Sticks and stones etc.. just an opinion as others have stated.

[shanegtr]

Don't forget it was 2002 and not everyone had a mobile phone then........

[TD50WA]

2002, mate, no mobile service in Roebourne.....certainly not outside the town....

It's hard enough getting coverage up there now!

Reading the court transcripts, she didn't cause or contribute to the crash, but had to move her stationary car to avoid being hit by the other one.

C'mon, no lights, no torches, no first aid kit, social issues of the area, 5 mins from police station, didn't see the crash, only heard it, no way of contacting help other than to leave the scene.....unlikely another car would be along, and if it was, it would more than likely be more trouble.....

She did not know what the crash was or it's severity, it was pitch black. How the hell can you render assistance if you can't see.....car lights can only light up so much.

She went straight to police....not home first or anywhere else....

Like most armchair umpires, the medical board refused to acknowledge those environmental factors....
After reading the transcripts, I still believe she did the right thing in those circumstances FOR THAT LOCATION. It's got nothing to do with racism, just simple facts of personal safety at the time.

As I said before, all this will do is deter people from even reporting because they will be more concerned about this result than doing the right thing.

Cheers all
Kev

[Greatsouthernland]

Hi Kev, I'm happy to acknowledge you know more on the subject than I do, from some points you mention I accept there MAY be more to the story. But from the very little referenced, and the fact it was mentioned she didnt have her phone (why would that come up if not relevant Im unsure), I still accept my opinion ( and that of others including yourself sir ) is just that of arm chair critics.

Im sure she's a good sort and done a lot of good...its just a sad story and even more sad social scene that allows someone the indignity of no aid in such a critical moment. I hope none of us ever end up going out like that.

cheers.

armchair juror rests.

[bob10]

I can't help feeling that instead of focusing on the person who didn't stop, the focus perhaps should be on the reasons why some one would feel it unsafe to do so. And, I lived in the Territory for a few years, back in the 80's , so don't think I don't know. The fact that nothing has changed much, between then & now, a National disgrace. Bob

[TD50WA]

Hey no offence intended. As I said, no phone service up there at that time. So why carry one?

People have been found not guilty in court for not stopping after a crash because they were scared of repercussions. They went straight to a police station instead. What's the difference here? How many times do you read in the paper now about people being assaulted after crashes? No wonder people are not stopping...and that's nowadays, never mind in 2002 out in the sticks in an environment such as this event.

[TD50WA]

I can't help feeling that instead of focusing on the person who didn't stop, the focus perhaps should be on the reasons why some one would feel it unsafe to do so. And, I lived in the Territory for a few years, back in the 80's , so don't think I don't know. The fact that nothing has changed much, between then & now, a National disgrace. Bob


I hear what you are saying mate and yes, that is the biggest disgrace. Makes it hard for all of us.

[THE BOOGER]

Hi Kev, I'm happy to acknowledge you know more on the subject than I do, from some points you mention I accept there MAY be more to the story. But from the very little referenced, and the fact it was mentioned she didnt have her phone (why would that come up if not relevant Im unsure), I still accept my opinion ( and that of others including yourself sir ) is just that of arm chair critics.

Im sure she's a good sort and done a lot of good...its just a sad story and even more sad social scene that allows someone the indignity of no aid in such a critical moment. I hope none of us ever end up going out like that.

cheers.

armchair juror rests.


It probably came up now as the article was written by some one under 30 who cannot conceive a time with out mobile phones:(

[TD50WA]

Yes, and I still remember what it was like to go away for a holiday and not get any news (good or bad) until you got home....ahhhhh paradise.....:D

Nowadays as soon as the old mobile gets a signal, along comes the emails and messages.....and ya just gotta read em......curiosity....

But even now people who have not travelled in WA cannot understand....MOST of WA does NOT have mobile phone cover......a couple of ks out of townships and zip....That is the towns that actually have mobile coverage for your particular carrier, Telstra is most places, but not everyone else, and they don't necessarily share either.

Geez, I still remember my first brick....damn, showing my age now:D

Kev

[Greatsouthernland]

It probably came up now as the article was written by some one under 30 who cannot conceive a time with out mobile phones:(

True, we do see a lot of complacency on the status quo from genY (here we go, wait for the backlash from one of them any minute now)..;) :wheelchair::whistling::spudnikguitar:

[FeatherWeightDriver]

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be if in doubt do not report the accident. :mad:

That does not help the injured, but keeps our scared good samaritan out of goal with plausible deniability.

Good job judges... again...

[Greatsouthernland]

I thought something about this didnt seem right...

A google search found this...

Doctor fined for dangerous driving causing death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-12-14/doctor-fined-for-dangerous-driving-causing-death/761554)

She contributed to the accident! (allegedly) Did a runner for selfish reasons (allegedly), not the other reasons mentioned here :rolleyes:

Doctor fined for dangerous driving causing death

Posted 14 Dec 2005, 7:19pmWed 14 Dec 2005, 7:19pm



Map: Karratha 6714


A doctor from Karratha, in Western Australia's north-west, has been found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

In 2002, 55-year-old radiologist Leila Dekker failed to give way to an oncoming vehicle on the North West Coastal Highway.

The driver of the approaching vehicle swerved to avoid being hit, but the car rolled several times, killing a female passenger.

Dekker drove off without stopping to assist or calling for help.

In the Karratha District Court, Dekker was fined $10,000 and had her driver's licence suspended for two years.



Passenger 'pleaded' for crash doc to stop

9 December, 2013 Antonio Bradley 11 comments


Passenger 'pleaded' for crash doc to stop
The "terrified" doctor who drove away from a fatal car crash in remote WA without rendering assistance was accompanied by a passenger who allegedly pleaded...


While Dr Dekker did not see the other vehicle subsequently go over an embankment and roll over, she heard the noise of the impact and her passenger thought the vehicle may have rolled over. Her passenger suggested that they go and check what had happened. Dr Dekker refused to do so but agreed to drive to the police station and report the event. Dr Dekker did not have a mobile phone with her or first aid equipment or a torch.

The matter came before the WA Tribunal eleven years after the accident, which occurred in April 2002. A passenger in the other vehicle was thrown out of the vehicle and died at the scene. Dr Dekker was convicted of dangerous driving causing death at a District Court trial in 2005. She was fined $10,000 and disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Dr Dekker subsequently appealed, and in a 2:1 decision in 2009, her appeal was successful and her conviction quashed by the WA Supreme Court of Appeal [2]. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence in the District Court trial established that the other driver had lost control of his vehicle before Dr Dekker entered the T intersection. While Dr Dekker may not have taken reasonable care when entering the intersection, her driving did not cause his vehicle to leave the road and roll over and hence the conviction could not stand.

The Tribunal considered her statement to the Police a few days after the accident, her evidence in the subsequent trial and appeal and her statement and evidence to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal had to consider whether Dr Dekker’s conduct was sufficiently connected to the profession of medicine and if it was, whether the conduct was improper or infamous.

Dr Dekker and her counsel argued that she was shocked and scared by the near miss, it was dark, she had no torch, first aid equipment or mobile phone, there had been violent incidents in the region and since the police station was nearby the most expedient thing to do was to go to the police.

The Medical Board’s counsel argued that Dr Dekker knew that an accident had probably occurred with the prospect that persons were injured, she could have used her car headlights to illuminate the area where the noise had come from and at least made a preliminary assessment of who had been injured and the extent of the injuries. The Board argued further that this would be a reasonable expectation of the medical profession and that Dr Dekker’s failure to do so would be regarded by her peers as being improper or infamous.

The Tribunal concluded that there was a sufficient connection between the event and the profession of medicine, even though the event did not occur as part of Dr Dekker’s medical practice. In the Tribunal’s view, “saving human life and healing sick and injured people is a core purpose and ethic of the medical profession”.

In considering her conduct, the Tribunal determined that even though Dr Dekker had reported the event to the police, her failure to stop, make an assessment and render assistance when she was physically able to do so and had the knowledge and skills to do so, would “reasonably be regarded as improper by medical practitioners of good repute and competency”. The Tribunal observed that had Dr Dekker not promptly reported the event to the police, her conduct would have constituted infamous conduct.

After making its finding, the Tribunal determined to hold a further hearing in February 2014 to consider the appropriate penalty and any orders as to costs.
- See more at: http://www.holmanwebb.com.au/publications/wa-tribunal-finds-doctor-s-failure-to-check-and-render-assistance-at-car-accident-improper-conduct#sthash.uWRQ60Y8.dpuf

The content on this site is available to Australian Registered Health Practitioners only.
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/passenger-pleaded-for-crash-doctor-to-stop

[Greatsouthernland]

9 The practitioner was cross*examined by Mr PD Quinlan SC, who appeared with Ms J Tavelli on behalf of the Board. Under cross*examination, the practitioner conceded that her statements in relation to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour in Roebourne at paragraphs 14, 22, 23 and 24 of her witness statement refer to the 'general conditions of the area at the time' (T:10.6, 22.10.13), but she '[wasn't] thinking of any of those things' (T:10.9, 22.10.13) when she made the decision to leave the scene of the 'near miss' incident. The practitioner also conceded that her statements in relation to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour in Roebourne have 'nothing to do with the incident' (T:11.5, 22.10.13).
10 The practitioner also gave evidence under cross*examination that, after the 'near miss' incident, she was 'not thinking at all' (T:10.9, 22.10.13) and that:

… At that time, I was [in] a state of shock as well, I think. Yes. Yes. I didn't know what was happening around me. I had no idea what was happening. I was in absolute shock from the moment of the near*miss, just before the near*miss, … (T:12.4, 22.10.13).and
You could just as easily have checked on the people in the other car, couldn't you?***I don't think so. In that moment of time * in that specific moment of my life * special moment of my life * two moments of my life, I freaked out completely. I was almost hit by a car and killed recently then I found myself in the edge of the embankment, then I thought I was going down the hill. (T:21.9*22.1, 22.10.13).11 Similarly, in re*examination, the practitioner said that:
… I think I was in a state of shock from the moment that I saw the headlights in collision course with my car … to the moment that I found myself at police station. And after as well, outside of police station, shaking. Took a long time, yes. (T:23.6*.7, 22.10.13).

(Page 10)


12 The practitioner was also cross*examined and re*examined in relation to sworn evidence that she gave on 6 December 2005 in a trial in the District Court of Western Australia concerning the 'near miss' incident. Under cross*examination in this proceeding, the practitioner agreed with the proposition that 'the evidence you gave back in 2005 is going to be a better record of what you remembered than what you can tell us now?' (T:21.5, 22.10.13). This is hardly surprising, given that her evidence at the District Court trial was given three and a half years after the 'near miss' incident, whereas her evidence in this proceeding was given 11 and a half years after the incident. At the commencement of her cross*examination in this proceeding, the practitioner said that her witness statement contains '… my faint recollection of events' (T:7.8, 22.10.13).
13 In her evidence in the District Court trial, the practitioner said on a number of occasions that, during and after the 'near miss' incident, she was in a 'state of shock'. The practitioner also gave the following evidence in chief in the District Court trial as to what happened after her car came to a halt on the embankment:

What did you do then?***I was petrified, petrified, and then I heard a noise. I was not sure about the noise, so I looked to the side and asked the passenger, "What's this noise about?" and then he looked at me and said, "I think they roll it," and I look in the front again and I couldn't see even the top of the bush and they * I turn again to him and I said, "What are we going to do now?" I was talking about direction of the car, and he said, "I think it's better to go to the police," and then I turned to the front again and I put the car in rear***
In reverse?***In reverse, the car went back and I drove to the police.

14 Under cross*examination in the District Court trial, the practitioner confirmed that her passenger had told her 'I think they roll it' in relation to the second vehicle.
15 Under cross*examination in the District Court trial, the practitioner agreed that in a police record of interview conducted five days after the 'near miss' incident she said the following in response to the question 'Why did you drive away without stopping to offer assistance?':

As a medical doctor, I know there would be a bad injury and I know it was a waste of time so I go to police so they can get help[.]
16 When asked by the cross*examiner in the District Court trial whether that statement was 'the truth', the practitioner said:

(Page 11)
I describe that, I said that and probably that description of my instinct as a doctor.
17 When she was asked in cross*examination in this proceeding about her statement in the police record of interview that 'As a medical doctor, I know there would be a bad injury and I know it was a waste of time so I go to police so they can get help', the practitioner said 'I don't remember that anymore' (T:18.8, 22.10.13). However, as the practitioner agreed in her sworn evidence in 2005 that she made that statement only five days after the incident and said that it was a description of her 'instinct as a doctor', we feel an actual persuasion based on clear and cogent evidence, in accordance with the Briginshaw approach (see legal framework and principles below), and find that the practitioner told the police five days after the 'near miss' incident that she knew that there would be a bad injury and that that was her instinctive understanding as a medical practitioner at the time she left the scene of the 'near miss' incident on 27 April 2002.
18 Furthermore, given that the practitioner gave sworn evidence in examination in chief and in cross*examination in the District Court trial that her passenger told her 'I think they roll it' after she heard the noise while on the embankment, we feel an actual persuasion based on clear and cogent evidence, in accordance with the Briginshaw approach, and find that the practitioner was aware that the second vehicle may have rolled over when she left the scene of the 'near miss' incident.

... a bit of dishonesty evidenced by the change of story and brain dead deduction that injury would have been instantly terminal, so best go straight to the clean up crew, no assessment, even by her male passenger, bloody disgraceful of both of them, I wonder what their relationship was/is and what transpired leading to the passenger eventually submitting a statement for her appeal...

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/%24%24OpenDominoDocument.xsp'documentId=4217A5178C 9EF08948257C380029CFDB&action=openDocument

40 In this case, the practitioner was aware that a motor vehicle accident had or may have occurred and that people involved had or may have been injured, because the second vehicle was travelling at an excessive speed and narrowly missed her vehicle, she heard noise of impact and was told by her passenger that 'I think they roll it', and, as a medical practitioner, she instinctively knew that there would be 'a bad injury' as a consequence. The practitioner was in the vicinity and was physically able to assist. Although it was dark and the practitioner did not have a torch with her, there is no reason why she could not have used the headlights of her vehicle to illuminate the scene. Although the practitioner did not have any medical equipment or a first aid kit with her, her knowledge and skills


(Page 18)
as a medical practitioner would have enabled her to make an assessment of the condition of the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle and render first aid to them if necessary.
41 Furthermore, the fact that she did not own or have a mobile telephone with her at the time and the fact that the police station to which she drove to report the incident was only a short distance away did not discharge her professional duty to make an assessment and render assistance at the scene. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the practitioner's conduct would reasonably be regarded as improper by professional colleagues of good repute and competency. In order to save life, first aid may need to be rendered immediately. Any delay in providing first aid after a traumatic injury, even a delay of a short period, could result in death. Furthermore, even if it were necessary to leave the scene of the accident to call for assistance from emergency services, it was necessary for the practitioner to determine the number of persons who were injured, to assess their injuries and needs to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances, and to see if they were trapped, in order for appropriate emergency services to be dispatched.
42 The practitioner gave evidence that shortly after the 'near miss', her passenger 'suggested that we go to the police'. Mr Morrissey's written submission for the practitioner said that the passenger 'actively encouraged [the practitioner] that the best course of action would be to attend at the nearby Roebourne police station'. Whether the passenger actively encouraged her or merely suggested that they go to the police station, it could not possibly have the effect that the practitioner's conduct would not reasonably be regarded as improper by professional colleagues of good repute and competency. Given that saving of human life and healing sickness and injury is at the core of the profession of medicine, a medical practitioner must adhere to their duty irrespective of what others may suggest or encourage.

43 The fact that the practitioner was 'in a state of shock', 'petrified' and 'freaked out' after the 'near miss' incident is hardly surprising in a case where a person is involved in an accident or in a near*miss situation. However, the practitioner was not simply 'a shocked and distraught woman', to quote Mr Morrissey's submission, but rather a member of the medical profession who had gone through a no doubt frightening near*miss experience, but was thankfully physically unharmed, and was aware that another vehicle had or may have crashed in her vicinity. Because she is a member of the medical profession, and therefore a person with medical knowledge and skills to save life and to heal the sick and


(Page 19)
injured in the community, her professional duty required that she overcome or at least put aside the shock and provide assistance to the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle. Although the practitioner's 'shock' may be relevant in relation to penalty, it does not have the consequence that her conduct would reasonably be regarded as anything other than improper (or, had she not immediately reported the matter to police or other emergency services, disgraceful or dishonourable) by professional colleagues of good repute and competency.
44 Finally, as noted earlier, the practitioner did not give evidence that 'violence towards women was a common occurrence and this was known to [her]', as suggested in Mr Morrissey's submission. The practitioner did refer to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour as a common occurrence in the locality. However, she conceded in cross*examination that these were not matters about which she was thinking at the time when she made the decision to leave the scene after the 'near miss' incident.
45 In any case, even if the practitioner had been thinking of these issues, they would not have absolved her from her professional obligation to make an assessment and render assistance to the occupants of the second vehicle. Furthermore, contrary to Mr Morrissey's submission, it was not reasonable to expect that the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle 'would have been agitated and might have posed a risk to the [practitioner's] personal safety', given that the practitioner was aware, by instinct as a doctor, that they had suffered 'a bad injury'. Of course, if the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle had threatened violence towards the practitioner, the practitioner would have discharged her professional obligation and could have driven to the police station.

[korg20000bc]

Thanks for looking into that, Greatsouthernland.

[boa]

So many Possible outcomes, the deceased was thrown from vehicle. So possibly not wearing seat belt. Common in that area. Does that make a difference more legal questions than moral behavior.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

A different slant on the picture now, but as I said much earlier,
... One wonders however, if there's any other information that we're not being told?

[Greatsouthernland]

A different slant on the picture now, but as I said much earlier,

Well played. :D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Well played. :DI still say that you don't walk into danger.

Personally, as a trauma nurse with disaster training, I would attend the scene and assess the patients using the SAFE Approach DRABCDEFG, but I wouldn't walk into extreme danger (as I assess it) and would see that other resources are en-route. But I don't see that it is necessarily correct to sanction a medico or other health professional if their assessment was reasonable at the time.

In the radiologist's case we weren't originally told about the male passenger which puts a whole different slant on it.

[boa]

I still say that you don't walk into danger.

Personally, as a trauma nurse with disaster training, I would attend the scene and assess the patients using the SAFE Approach DRABCDEFG, but I wouldn't walk into extreme danger (as I assess it) and would see that other resources are en-route. But I don't see that it is necessarily correct to sanction a medico or other health professional if their assessment was reasonable at the time.

In the radiologist's case we weren't originally told about the male passenger which puts a whole different slant on it.

And that information is with held from the original article, for any reason, just makes people more cynical and feeds the conspiracy lovers.

[Tombie]

I was working a Brownfield remote mine area and wouldn't even carry my Sat Phone...

No need... Won't ring whilst in the vehicle and if you required assistance for heart attack etc it wouldn't have helped because they wouldn't make it in time...

Just used to old "going xyz, back at 1234" method... If you weren't back by then people came looking...

We CAN survive without all the tech!

[Greatsouthernland]

And that information is with held from the original article, for any reason, just makes people more cynical and feeds the conspiracy lovers.

Agree, like I supposed, there may have been a motive by some interest group to influence the readers in a particular way...or simply sloppy journalism.

Either way, I'm not a conspiracy lover by any means, but if I smell a rat and I'm slightly interested, then I'll go looking. Just dumb luck and the internet provided some critical information for anyone interested in having an opinion.

Maybe someone should provide our research to the publisher of the op article and suggest they refresh the news? Yeh I know, dreamin...

[Greatsouthernland]

I was working a Brownfield remote mine area and wouldn't even carry my Sat Phone...

No need... Won't ring whilst in the vehicle and if you required assistance for heart attack etc it wouldn't have helped because they wouldn't make it in time...

Just used to old "going xyz, back at 1234" method... If you weren't back by then people came looking...

We CAN survive without all the tech!

Yep, simply a Remote Area Work Plan and a location board with check in and return times. Almost idiot-proof. :D