Please help me respond back to this discussion post...thank you!

Why do you suppose the hospital in Childs did not have a physician present or immediately available to assist in its emergency department?

At that time, which the case was in 1969, did not require physicians on call to see and examine all emergency patients. They were only required to have an on-call doctor "nearby". This was before better standards of emergency care were enacted.

Under early common law, a physician had no common law (duty to treat and aid) responsibility to respond to a call for help when he/she (doctor) had no preexisting relationship with the patient. Also, a general rule (black-letter law) stated that hospitals had no duty to treat any specific individual. Furthermore, they accepted persons for admission and treatment only on a physician's order.

Nowadays, a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) helps run emergency departments and ensures emergency care for all. As stated in the internet article, "Enacted by Congress in 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was designed to provide emergency care to all patients, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. EMTALA defines 3 responsibilities of participating hospitals (defined as hospitals that accept Medicare reimbursement):1. Provide all patients with a medical screening examination (MSE), 2. Stabilize any patients with an emergency medical condition, and 3. Transfer or accept appropriate patients as needed." (Maughan, 2019)

Why would a physician not come to the hospital and personally examine a woman in labor?

A number of factors come into play as to whether a hospital admits a woman in labor, depending on risk and other parameters. A physician like Dr. Weis would not come to the hospital to examine Mrs. Childs because he did not want to undertake caring for the patient. A contract, either express or implied, would create a relationship between a patient and physician. However, in this case, Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs did not have an agreement/contract, so there was no duty whatsoever for Dr. Weis to examine or treat Mrs. Childs, and no liability accrued. He wanted Mrs. Child's to refer back to her regular physician, so in the event that something would happen he could not be held liable for malpractice.

What were the motives of the parties involved?

The main legal issue in the case is whether a doctor-patient relationship existed between Dr. Weis and Mrs. Childs. Daisy Childs visited the Greenville Hospital , where no physician was present in the emergency because they didn't require physicians on call in the emergency department to treat or even see all patients. The physician didn't come personally and see the patient because the physician informed the duty nurse to send her back to her regular doctor. The nurse mis relayed the message and told her to go to her doctor in Dallas. The motives of the parties are: 1.) for Dr. Weis and hospital, it was to defend the issue and the patient, and 2.) for Mrs. Childs, it is to take legal action towards the physician who did not see her in the emergency room.

References

Childs v. Weis, 440 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1969).

Maughan, E. (2019, June 10). All about EMTALA: The Law That Runs the ED. EMRA. https://www.emra.org/emresident/article/emtala/

Showalter, J. (2020). The Law of Healthcare Administration (9th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.