noticed that the case of Xu Ma suing Du in the second instance was "concealing the condition of hepatitis B". This case is easily trapped in the unfavorable result of providing evidence. Because the large pharmacy has a universal big pocket for "confused management", Du can get rid of the responsibility by just saying "I didn't hide it, it's the large pharmacy's management chaotic." The same is true from the judgment result.
The evidence analysis made by the professor of the University of Great Learning on a big name program seems to be also making a cut, that is, to separate Du and the pharmacy, intentionally or unintentionally weaken Du and the pharmacy "work together" with the pharmacy possibilities. As long as this cutting is successful, 28 will fall into the dilemma of "no two ends":
On the one hand, as a mother, Du naturally cannot do other things; and no matter how she goes into the big pharmacy that she violates the rules, she can blame it. She just took advantage of the loopholes in the chaos for the pharmacy.
On the other hand, the pharmacy has already had a universal shield of "confused management" and is not afraid of losing money. This is equivalent to a "super bottom line", so it is naturally difficult to break through. At the same time, the pharmacy also left a backup plan: "If you find a human possibility, you will reserve the right to counterclaim", that is, I will admit the result of "management chaos", but if there is any new situation in the future, I will not be a sucker.
The big pharmacy itself is actually doing such cutting. For example, all problems such as modifying medical records, why the two children were not managed separately, and why they were not given hepatitis B vaccine to YC were put into a big cage of "management chaos", and separated from "the child was replaced by mistake". Then the handwriting identification is "unnecessary", and the defendant's party becomes "witness" - these key people and things closely related to the "mistake exchange" incident become "unnecessary" in this way, so they become "unnecessary" Investigate the parallel element of .
Once the cutting is successful, A can say that I have no problems, it is all B's problems. B, it can be said that I am in a chaotic management and I am willing to lose money. Then the truth is hidden in such a "playing football model", and even the person responsible cannot be found. Even if the two lawyers Pan and Li are outstanding in martial arts, they will be trapped in a passive situation where they cannot provide evidence or lack of evidence.
But in fact, in public places like the pharmacy, and the pharmacy itself also has many institutional processes. To achieve a traceless exchange of two children, it is absolutely impossible to rely on Du Mou’s strength alone. There must be a The mechanism of "working together" can be foolproof.
Judging from the current public information, it is not Du who is related to the core of the "partnership" mechanism, but Zhigujin. First, Zhigu is the key person connecting Du and the pharmacy. The relationship between Zhigu and Guo Du, Du said several versions, but if it is a simple and normal relationship, there should be only one version. And no concealment is required. Second, during the child's mistaken change, Zhiguji miraculously kept on duty for seven consecutive days. In theory, she knew best what happened in those days. Third, when Xu Ma was discharged from the hospital, the one who handed the child to Xu Ma was Zhigu Mu, which means that Zhigu Mu was the last person to "change the child".
Then, in a legal sense, Xu Ma entered the pharmacy to give birth and paid the fee, which was equivalent to entering into a contractual relationship with the pharmacy. However, the "result" of the final delivery of Zhigu Mushroom was a serious mistake. The responsibilities and obligations of identification, verification and accurate delivery were not fulfilled, and the incalculable losses and injuries caused to Xu Ma and Xu Ma's family should be regarded as "direct infringement". "
uses Zhiguojin as the defendant, and may find a breakthrough in the 28 incidents (but professional lawyers need to consider the legal procedures and feasibility).
First, it is conducive to changing the responsibility of the group to individuals and breaking the collective silence of the large pharmacies. From a general psychological point of view, most people are relatively unsatisfied with collective responsibility, but are more concerned about individual responsibility. For example, in the 28 incidents, the pharmacy would rather bear the infamous reputation of "management chaos" and "sub-changing hospital" and huge compensation than hold anyone responsible accountable, and no medical staff stood up to speak out. The reason is very simple, that is, these infamous and compensation are all borne by the "unit" of the pharmacy and have little to do with personal interests.
But if the responsibility is brought to someone, she may not be willing to do it, and she will not be willing to take responsibility for the collective. She may ask the collective or team to bear the responsibility together, so that there may be situations where the pharmacies report and expose each other, breaking the "unified front" from the inside out, and finding a breakthrough in finding the truth.
It’s like when you scold a group of people for being crazy, and often no one pays attention to it, but when you scold someone for being crazy, the other party will jump up and fight back. Human psychology is so wonderful.
Secondly, it is conducive to bypassing the strong defense of the large pharmacies and achieving attack on their weakness. From the perspective of litigation confrontation, the confrontation of the large pharmacy should obviously not be underestimated. After all, it has strong capital and resources support, and the tone and confidence to guarantee the penalty. But if one of them is prosecuted, its confrontation will be significantly weaker. At the same time, this person not only has to bear the economic cost, time cost, energy cost, etc. of the lawsuit, but also has to follow up on the cumbersome process of the lawsuit, expose it in the spotlight, explain the facts in court, and carry out self-defense. At this time, her group or team will become bystanders and she will become the parties involved. She will definitely be unbalanced and may not be able to help bringing the gang out to share the responsibility, which may be achieved without confrontation.
Third, it is conducive to forcing the parties to explain the incident process at that time and promote the concretization of some vague problems. Generally speaking, people have limited memory of "normal events", but their memory of "normal events" is extremely profound. For example, if you stole a particularly beautiful pencil from a classmate 20 years ago, you are in a panic all day long, and you will remember it 20 years later or even 30 years later. The most typical case is the "S burying the playground" case. Even if 16 years have passed, the participants' description of the situation at that time is as clear as yesterday.
. At that time, Du was from another place, did not have an birth certificate, and was still a hepatitis B patient. So many special tags were superimposed. As a large pharmacy that was striving to become a third-class doctorate, as a medical staff involved in nursing at that time, it should be a special "unnormal" "The incident" should be impressed. But the "Four Golden Flowers" in unison said in unison that they "can't remember" and even their signatures "can't remember", which deviates from people's basic memory rules (if some remember some don't remember, they are reasonable, but they are still very reasonable. ) is obviously a "unified caliber" practiced in advance, underestimating the IQ of F Officers and the people of the whole country.
If Zhigugu is the defendant, she at least has the obligation to explain how Du was admitted to the hospital? Who was the person who held the child in her hand in the end? Did she verify her identity when she took the child? If she doesn't say it, she will bear the adverse consequences of providing evidence; if she says it randomly, she will bear the consequences of perjury; if she says it, there will be a breakthrough.
includes someone who "finds an acquaintance" and entering the pharmacy in violation of regulations. Who is the specific acquaintance is always vague. Mr. Du didn’t say it, nor did the pharmacy. Strangely, the F Hospital did not ask questions. If Zhigugu is the defendant, she may not be able to avoid this problem. After all, she was "on duty every day" at that time and was here every day.
The fourth is conducive to differentiating the interests of the other party and achieving each other's defeat. Whenever "work together", they usually have the mentality of "either admit it together or refuse to admit it", so in the venue, the "four golden flowers" will "not remember" so neatly (how can people's memories be able to be So uniform), the entire pharmacy will be so uniform that it will "collectively lose voice".
But if we do not pursue the crowd and only pursue one, we can often force the respondent to protect themselves, and the relevant persons can watch the fire from the other side of the river, which can differentiate their interests and related camps. In order to prevent the pharmacy from making the case "the unit is responsible for personal mistakes", it can simply sue that it "has not verified the identity of the baby and mistakenly carried someone else's child to the plaintiff, resulting in the infringement incident." By only pursuing part of the responsibilities of "wrongly holding the child" in the "wrongly changing" incident, differentiating the different subjects of unit responsibility and personal responsibility, clarifying the division between unit responsibility and individual responsibility, so that individuals cannot use the pharmacy as a shield. The pharmacy cannot take care of the bottom line.
Of course, there are definitely many difficulties in achieving the above goals, and accurate and legal design is also required in specific operations. I hope that legal professionals and the majority of justice netizens will start thinking and offer suggestions (please leave a message in the comment area if you have good opinions or suggestions), work together to promote the truth, and fight for justice.
Copyright Statement: The author Ruoshui Sanqian is a national second-level psychological counselor in , and a senior educator. This article is an original article from Ruoshui Sanqian and is exclusively authorized to be released for the first time in Toutiao. Netizens are welcome to forward. Reproduction may not be made without consent.
