Funny how you keep misusing “fallacious”; I wasn’t making an argument, it was a statement of fact.
real_aurgathor Whether the law require that is largely irrelevant in this case.
oh, now you’re agreeing with me, weird!
real_aurgathor Whether they were obligated to do something, or could have done something to prevent this tragedy are two entirely different things.
Not within the legal context of what I had written; There are limits to how far aspects of are society are expected to prevent people from harming themselves.
I’m not sure why you’re still pushing this considering we do not have enough information to determine if this man killed himself through willful negligence or ignorance, or if the medical facility didn’t follow protocols, or if the medical facility hasn’t established effective protocols.
real_aurgathor I can safely state that it wasn’t locked. And I predict that will probably be one of the core argument from the estate.
I would take that bet as I expect that their core argument would certainly not be what you wrote.
Their core argument would be one of broader negligence in MRI safety and access control, not just “he wasn’t warned” and not just “the door was unlocked.” The plaintiff’s focus would likely be that the facility failed to screen him, failed to stop him, and failed to maintain safe MRI procedures for a known extreme hazard. The signs, interactions, and unlocked door points would be pieces of a larger strategy and not the entirety of the case.