We are living in a 'litigation society' where there are so many
                        cases to be heard that you may have to wait a long time to even
                        get some court space. 'Professionals' owe a duty of care.
                        Professionals from mechanics to doctors, automobile driver's,
                        home owners & tenants, lawyers, social workers… almost
                        everyone owes a duty of care to someone when you are at home,
                        on the streets or at work, there is someone relying on you to
                        apply common sense judgement or you may be liable.

                        This applies to the health industry especially. If there is a
                        situation at home (with infants especially) where you call a doctor.
                        The doctor will come over and, where a child is concerned, would
                        rather call an ambulance then attend to the child himself
                        regardless of the severity of the situation. This way he is able to
                        discharge his liability. What would happen if he did not call an
                        ambulance and something did go wrong? He could be facing an
                        action against him. So, to avoid this action, he wants all of his
                        clients to be discharged from his care into the ambulance service.
                        When he makes the phone call, his liability is discharged into the
                        hands of emergency services. What do they do? They want to
                        discharge their liability so how do they do this? They take the
                        child to the hospital (regardless of whether the child is well or
                        not). Once the child has been delivered to hospital, the
                        ambulance service has discharged it's liability handing it happily
                        to the hospital. Now, the hospital is generally the top of the chain
                        in a situation like this (unless they discharge to a specialist
                        doctor). They have just received a child who has been delivered to
                        hospital as an emergency (who is perfectly healthy but unable to
                        communicate this in English form) so the doctors must treat it as
                        an emergency because in the back of their minds, all they want to
                        do is discharge their liability too. So, they treat your child as ill
                        (regardless of health status) as a 'precautionary' measure. The
                        drugs that they give your child always have side effects so, at the
                        end of the day (week or month), you are given back your child
                        who was healthy in the beginning and has now been returned to
                        you with all sorts of physical and emotional side effects. She has
                        been the 'victim' of the liability loop. They treated her for no reason
                        except "there could be something wrong" and, more to the point, I
                        have to administer harmful drugs to discharge liability. So,
                        because the child was treated, the people in the loop think the
                        child must have needed this lifesaving treatment even though this
                        is a complete misconception and they walk away believing they
                        'saved' yet another life and you are left to pick up the pieces from
                        the effects of the unnecessary drugs.