Communications after Arrival of a Road Traffic Accident Victim

'Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways @MORTHIndia Launches Rewarding Scheme for Grant of Award to the Good Samaritan who has saved the life of a victim of a fatal accident involving a motor vehicle': Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, 06 October 2021.1 Dear Editor, Mohan et al. wrote an article on 'communication skills to avoid litigation' under a section of Medical Education and got it published in the September 2023–December 2023 issue of the journal.2 In the write-up, they emphasise the value of having a regular dialogue with attendants of a seriously ill patient, explaining to them about current and evolving status and then updating it as and when indicated, getting informed consent when indicated and detecting early signs of breakdown of the process. The latter sign helps healthcare staff to call for help and de-escalate the situation swiftly. Furthermore, they underscore the importance of maintaining a good medical record in case they are later called to courts for litigation. More often than not I witness that process while providing an evidence in a court-of-law in person. I agree with all the points mentioned by the authors in the write-up and express my gratitude for their expression in such a simple, yet exhaustive, way so that young residents may get some lessons from it. Nevertheless, there is some contradiction and a difference of opinion at a specific point under a header of medical records as a tool for written communication. They mention when medicolegal cases are brought to the hospital, their details should be noted appropriately so that it may be produced as and when needed by law-enforcement officers. Towards the end of the header, they highlight about a medicolegal register which should record inter alia demographics of the person who brought the patient to emergency room. But because of this reason many a times first responders (people present at the site of an accident) hesitate to bring the victim to nearby hospital resulting in undue delay in transport-many a times resulting in loss of a limb or life of the victim, is a known fact. In a study by Sathyanath et al., the first reason for the delay in public transport for such groups was fear of medicolegal issues amongst the first responders.3 To allay these concerns, the concerned ministry (the executive branch of the government) made a law that a person who brings such a person (victim of a road traffic accident), will not be forced to reveal his identity, and it all depends on his choice. Such a person is called a Good Samaritan and will get legal protection from police harassment later on.4 This message should go to the public at large, so that the only aspect a person at the site of an accident should have is to find out the rapid way of shifting the patient to a hospital at the earliest. Providing medical care to a patient is more important than completing legal formalities in the golden hour and platinum 10 min.5 Setting our priorities right may go a long way to protect citizens and make it easy to avail life-saving services in those critical moments. The first job of a doctor is to save the life of a patient and to identify the culprit is the responsibility of legal officers, that is, another branch entrusted to deliver justice and maintain law. Doctors should do what they are trained to do the best, for example triage and rapid initial assessment for trauma and shock; the rest will be taken care of by the state. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.