**5. Final comment**

Without the intention to demonize the doctors of these cases and in the understanding that we are only analyzing the medical action over the information given, it is clear that an emergency must be immediately treated to reduce suffering, pain, stabilizing, to make diagnosis, and decide the best therapeutic conduct pursuant to the expertise and skills of the doctor and the hospital infrastructure, and to the benefit of the patient in order to improve, cure, mitigate, or offer palliative care as the case may be.

There is doubt in the three mentioned cases whether the doctors that intervened were able, prepared, experimented, organized, with knowledge of the protocols, ethic, and if they made the best decisions for the benefit of the patient, but if the place where they are found does not have the resources and infrastructure required for treatment, there is institutional negligence. We can only state for a latter reading, that the reader makes and additional exercise assessing with their own judgment each of the cases and think what they would have done in each one to make a lex artis.

In the cited cases there are details that move the doubt on whether the medical act was the appropriate one and if, in ourselves, a bad decision is possible, even more in the patients and family members that are misinformed and miscounseled [21].

Lets go back to the humanistic medicine, lets fight medical commercialism at the cost of the patients and take back the well-respected social standing of centuries ago.

## **Author details**

Julio Cesar Ballesteros Del Olmo Academia Mexicana de Pediatría, Mexico City, Mexico

\*Address all correspondence to: jc56bo@gmail.com

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
