The time factor is the critical variable in our case example. One argument is that once the appropriate equipment became available, the doctor had already initiated an alternative procedure. Using the new equipment would have done more harm than good. Chains of command among hospital personnel, job function and appropriate communication between doctor and staff are all subjects of great concern to jurors. Jurors want to know who is responsible for what so they can decide who made which mistake and when.
Jurors are very interested in the level of parent involvement in their child's treatment.
Plaintiffs counsel in an injury case will generally present emotional testimony to the jury, especially when a child is involved. To counter this potentially damaging emotionalism, point out how all patients are alike in the doctor's eyes, that an elderly woman's health and well-being is as valuable as that of a child. Expound on the ideas of fairness and professional impartiality, equal devotion and concern for all. Stress that the doctor's primary consideration is always what is best for his or her patient. You can certainly concede that given an ideal situation, XYZ may have been better procedure, but this was not an ideal situation and had to be dealt with as such.