Duty of Care Document

Discussion

This document discusses Duty of Care based on the principle and universal Law of the Source that is in operation at all times and needs to be known, understood and respected in a healing practice.

In every interaction with any other person the Command of the Source to: Go your way in peace and only be loving compassionate, merciful and forgiving, applies in all circumstances. As does the supreme, universal and immutable Law of the Source: What you do to others will be done to you, (the law of karma) which applies for all positive and negative interactions.

In an interaction between parties where one party seeks advice or treatment from the other, the need for duty of care is increased through the structure of the arrangement. In a situation where one party seeks advice or treatment from the other in a ‘practice’ setting for a fee, duty of care * (See note at end) or the lack of it can have legal implications within man’s rules.

There is increasing legal litigation seeking ‘damages’, occurring in man’s courts using man’s rules where one party seeks redress from another for a perceived ‘wrong.’ The action by the complainant denies the Source’s: Be forgiving Command, and invokes the negative aspect of the: As you sow so shall you reap Law upon themselves.

In any interface using lawyers, the conflicting parties can be encouraged by the lawyers and legal processes to escalate the conflict, leading to a drawn out expensive court case where in many cases, the only financial winners are the lawyers, and none seeing that all parties become losers within the 'Law' of the Source for using the 'forceful' means of man's court to 'gain.'

The application of Duty of Care in our interaction with others is ‘counter balanced’ by the other parties need to also take responsibility for their Duty of Care, and always both parties should avoid confrontation in any dispute through communication and If necessary by mediation if one party is unable to forgive the other.

A case history of 'duty of care' in action, where the 'practitioner' addresses the concerns of the client attentively and fully and that leads to a positive and healing resolution may be found under the heading 'Case History' at: www.pindariherbfarm.com/quality/taste.htm . Many cases of potential client litigation against a practitioner can be avoided and positively resolved by the practitioner addressing the client's concerns adequately in the first instance.

The Source’s Law in a Healing Practice.

When one criticizes, sues, attempts to penalize another person or uses any other negative act, they invoke the negative aspect of the Source’s Law (the law of karma) and ahead at a God ordained time and place on an ‘eye for an eye' basis, others will do the same to them.

Thus if a patient takes legal action against a practitioner that results in financial loss or more to the practitioner, then it is the application of the above Law that is in place, and it is the punitive aspect of God that is the underlying instigator of the 'action,' using the ignorant foolishness of the ‘other’ as He metes out His ‘return’ under His singular: As you so sow you reap Law. An action that probably has nothing to do with the 'case' at hand and, any punitive 'result' arising from the 'action' then becomes a spiritual due upon the instigator.

Thus every endeavor should be made to stop any escalation of the conflict between the parties and the one against whom the complaint is made should endeavor to ‘satisfy’ the complainant and they (the complainant) should be educated with the reality that it is they who ahead will suffer the same, as the karmic wheels ‘rolls over’ and they should heed the be forgiving Command of the Source.

Comprehending the absoluteness of the Source’s LAW enables a deeper appreciation of the importance of heeding the Source’s Command at all times. (See www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/web/thelaw1.htm )

NOTE: Duty of care – Every person must try and understand that 'some' are very careful and others are not and, that 'some' people take no self-responsibility in respect of the medication they use, assuming that it is 'good for them' when it fact it may not be so due to many reasons. Thus everyone needs to try and be as careful as they can, and IF a medical practitioner or 'drug' manufacturer supplies a product that causes 'harm' for any reason then the 'sufferer' needs to accept their 'fate' and leave it to God to 'judge' the supplier. By all means the 'victim' can and should advise the supplier of their 'problem' but not for the sake of taking punitive action against them or for seeking 'damages' remuneration.

Ken Atherton
December 2010  

Home