Follow-up

Do you all remember? At the scene back then, after Dr. Su Yifeng measured his blood sugar, he said this: "According to the triage standards, I must forcibly stop the individual's fasting behavior." Everyone, look closely at what's in this sentence. "According to the triage standards" is the examination. "I must" is the judgment. "Forcibly stop the individual's fasting behavior" is the recommended treatment. Examination, judgment, treatment – three things all at once. This is no longer "just helping to measure," this is making a clinical judgment in the capacity of a physician's professional identity. And he said it himself, facing the camera. So when supporters say, "There was no other medical activity at the scene," that statement probably doesn't even include what their own doctor friends said. Third, but I don't intend to be a judge. Article 8-2 of the "Physician Act" does have provisos, including "emergency rescue" and "responding to a call for consultation." If today someone suddenly collapsed on the roadside, any doctor stepping forward to provide emergency aid is fulfilling their duty, and the regulations have liability exemption clauses. But this was a "pre-announced, planned political protest." Dr. Su brought equipment and declared "triage and treatment" to the media cameras. This is no longer emergency rescue; it's a political performance. I point this out not to settle scores with colleagues, nor do I need to determine whether a penalty should be imposed. What I truly want to highlight is the absurd double standard in the next paragraph: Why are physicians regulated so meticulously, while people's representatives are almost completely unregulated? A physician must register their practice location with the competent authority. To perform medical services outside the registered location, prior approval must be obtained.