NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 25, 2011 10:30:55 GMT -5
DQ are you feeling allright? That's what I just said.I agree with you and you are questioning that? I'm all right, sorry if I am repeating. I am killing time till my machine calbirates and I have been up since 5 am trying to wean the kiddo.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Aug 25, 2011 10:30:56 GMT -5
If you contact me looking for a date, I can tell you with great certainty there will be a problem. ;D
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Aug 25, 2011 10:45:34 GMT -5
And some doctors with their own drug addictions have been removed from practice because they operate pill mills.
You don't worry about terminal patients becoming addicted, their gonna die anyway. You worry about the seekers, and they're out there ruining for truly sick.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Aug 25, 2011 11:05:23 GMT -5
I am more concerned about people like my friend with the ruined back. Her ex left her in constant pain and she must have regular epidurals to function. Such people can work with carefully calibrated dosages of drugs, otherwise they are basket cases. *shakes head* *sigh*
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Aug 25, 2011 11:08:54 GMT -5
I am more concerned about people like my friend with the ruined back. Her ex left her in constant pain and she must have regular epidurals to function. Such people can work with carefully calibrated dosages of drugs, otherwise they are basket cases. While it sucks for her, she found something that works to keep her going. She's not an addict, and nobody's going to cut off her epidurals. If she was swallowing oxy's by the handful, though, I'd think differently, because it's amazing how many junkies have "pain" The ER calls them "seekers" and they show up like clockwork.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 25, 2011 11:14:41 GMT -5
Look, the reality of this guy's situation was that no one signs up for circumcision as an adult. We are to believe that someone with cancer, being treated for cancer, wants to micromanage the whole process
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Aug 25, 2011 11:15:29 GMT -5
God knows lawyers have to make a living too, but the money would have been more constructively spent providing medical care for the ill. Yes we do, but I don't do med mal, at all. I think those types of lawyers are scum sucking bottom feeders. But nice attempt at insulting me. Try again next time.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 11:33:33 GMT -5
The jury found that he did indeed consent to the operation and sided with the doctor. That's not what the article said at all. Did you even read it? SHELBYVILLE, Ky. -- Jurors rejected a truck driver’s claim for $16 million in damages after part of his penis was amputated because they believed the doctor saved the man’s life, the jury forewoman said in an interview Wednesday. That's the first paragraph. Here are some other snippets from the article. Tapp, 23, said jurors tried to put themselves in both Patterson’s and Seaton’s shoes.
“One of the main factors for us was he was going to have to have part of his penis removed regardless,” she said. But Tapp said jurors felt that waiting to perform the surgery could have been dangerous, causing infection when Patterson closed him up, possibly leading to additional swelling that would have prevented urination.
And Tapp said testimony showed Seaton had already had the aggressive cancer for up to two years and described his pain in urinating as a level 10.
“We thought it could have been at a dangerous point,” she said. They sided with the doctor all right, but they pretty much sidestepped the consent issue and ruled based on the same argument TT was making all day yesterday. The part they ignored was this: But a doctor who testified on behalf of the Seatons on Tuesday said the situation was not an emergency and removing a man’s penis is the “most psychologically debilitating” procedure.
And while George acknowledged that Patterson saved Seaton’s life, he told the jury that there were other urologists who could have done the procedure, or one similiar, at a different time, perhaps even someone who could have saved his penis.
”“He never gave him a choice,” George said of Patterson. “That’s offensive."
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 11:46:08 GMT -5
According to the links I accessed on this illness, cutting it off is just about the only option. Then tell the dude that before you put him under and cut off the end of his penis. Seriously, it's not that hard. It would have taken two minutes. That's the whole point of the lawsuit. Not that the doctor gave him the wrong treatment. Nobody has ever been arguing that. The doctor failed to inform him of the treatment so he went under thinking he was just losing a foreskin, and instead he lost the whole mushroom head. I would have been pissed too. Anyone would.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 25, 2011 11:59:52 GMT -5
According to the links I accessed on this illness, cutting it off is just about the only option
Nobody was arguing about the treatment. If that is how it is treated, that is how it is treated.
Consent laws exist for a reason, you can't skirt them just because you feel it is the right thing to do. The consequences of that are you open yourself up to a lawsuit.
The debate was if he CONSENTED, which the courts ruled that apparently he did so the whole debate is moot.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,332
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 25, 2011 12:02:56 GMT -5
Or maybe he didn't read it or maybe he didn't understand it. There are a lot of reasons why he could have filed suit besides looking for a payout. I've been amazed at how many people don't actually know about their rights as a patient and how many people just sign the form without even reading it.
Doesn't make his lawsuit legit, if he signed it states right on the form that means you "understood" and consented.
That doesn't make him a louse either, it makes him a human who made a misinformed decision.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 12:05:50 GMT -5
I'm sure he was told. He just conveniently "forgot" it when he filed his suit. That's not what the doctor argued in court. The doc's argument was that the situation was too dangerous to leave and talk to the patient about. I'm sure there was some boilerplate legaleze on the consent form about extenuating circumstances or discovery during a procedure which the doc is pointing at as consent. Then again, the plaintiff found a lawyer who feels that his client has a case worth taking about failure to consent so there is obviously no pre-op paperwork that mentions anything about amputation.
|
|
Regie
Established Member
I am a big mean snow leopard, yes I AM
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:13:24 GMT -5
Posts: 461
|
Post by Regie on Aug 25, 2011 17:07:53 GMT -5
Maybe he only had an inch so that is why he is so upset?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 17:56:28 GMT -5
LOL!!
They make a pill for that now though. He was deprived of twenty good years of self satisfaction! Although the doc did save him a ton on Kleenex and KY.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 18:04:33 GMT -5
Eh, just bombard his genitals with a scarily unhealthy dose of radiation, it might clear everything right up.
Bobbit had his hacked off and thrown in a field, not only did they reattach it, but he got it super sized and stars in porn now. We could have fixed this guy, we have the technology. We could have made him bigger, faster, stronger.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 25, 2011 18:42:45 GMT -5
They probably can do something. After all, they can turn women into men now. I think this guy lost the nerve cluster that would let him enjoy it though. They could bolt on a big plastic wang, but if you can't feel it what's the point?
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,731
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Aug 25, 2011 20:37:42 GMT -5
Ah yes, the big, bad overzealous government officials are shutting down good doctors. The people we shut down are running freaking pill mills. People are dying as a result of overdosing on the pills they get from these places.
We have this crazy thing called medical review where doctors review files to determine if treatment was appropriate. Which means in cases of people like your friend they will say yes, this is ok given her condition.
Maybe you should know what you are talking about before you go running off at the mouth. Obviously you think someone made you the expert on everything. And that no one can possibly know anything to the contrary. You know experience and evidence that might come from their current job. Any whackjob can write a book and get it published. And any doctor can be peddling pain pills and go boo hooing when they get shut down for it.
We do not just take licenses from doctors without a thorough investigation and evidence to support our conclusions. These places hold themselves out to be pill mills. They advertise as such and the friggin line forms around the damn block 2 hours before they even open for the day. Pill mills are not a joke and they need to be shut down.
|
|
mizbear
Senior Member
Stand back. I have a budget, and I know how to use it.
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:12:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by mizbear on Aug 25, 2011 22:52:00 GMT -5
Having had cancers and pre-cancers removed more times than I would like to count- if I have been sedated for a surgery (which is most of the time because "twilight" sedatives tell me nothing) and the surgeon finds a life-threatening condition- or one that should be treated then- I expect him to take care of it. Having a cancer history and losing an excessive amount of family members to cancer, maybe I am a little aggressive in my chosen treatment path. I believe in trying very much to treat with non-invasive, non-chemical treatments- but I also believe in swift action instead of dragging the feet because execs are calling shots instead of doctors and patients.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 26, 2011 12:43:03 GMT -5
That's fine mizbear, it's your body and your decision. Personally I feel that a doctor better give me a heads up before he cuts off a part of my body. If I go in for just a biopsy and wake up missing something I'd sue too. In a heart beat. Unless I was about to die on the table you don't frak with my body without my consent.
It's not that I don't trust doctors, or think they're going to do something that's not in my best interest (according to them anyway), it's that I have a fundamental right as a human being to control what happens to my body. It's my decision, not some doctor who doesn't have to live with the results.
People say no to medical treatment all the time, or get a second opinion and try a different therapy. They choose to go into palliative care instead of endure surgery after surgery after surgery and ultimately die on a hospital bed anyway. No doctor has the right to over ride those kind of decision, or make them for the patient.
|
|
whiskmav
Familiar Member
I like my tide and my table turned.
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 13:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 718
|
Post by whiskmav on Aug 26, 2011 16:54:38 GMT -5
It reads 'posse'!
|
|
whiskmav
Familiar Member
I like my tide and my table turned.
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 13:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 718
|
Post by whiskmav on Aug 26, 2011 16:55:36 GMT -5
Rotten tiger lillies.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Aug 27, 2011 11:00:29 GMT -5
If nothing else, I'm going to read just how much 'flexibility' the consent order has if I have to have surgery at some time
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Aug 29, 2011 13:27:49 GMT -5
If nothing else, I'm going to read just how much 'flexibility' the consent order has if I have to have surgery at some time Right! Swamp, can you give me a line of legaleze to put at the bottom of a consent form that would basically say, no procedure that hasn't been discussed with me beforehand may be performed? I want to make sure that if I ever do wake up missing little Dark, or something similar, at least I'll get paid in court.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 13:36:01 GMT -5
"he was there to have the cancer taken out."
No he wasn't, in fact he wasn't even diagnosed with cancer at the time. If he was there to have the cancer taken out there wouldn't be nearly as much argument here.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 13:40:22 GMT -5
Then the simplest way to handle that is to say, in writing, that under No circumstances is your penis to be cut or refuse anesthesia and watch every step of the way. This way you absolve the surgeon in the event you die a horrible death through your own choices. No, actually the simplest way to handle it is to find a surgeon who believes in patient consent and in following the law. There's no purpose to say in writing that you don't want a body part removed, because the doctor is bound by the consent you've already signed. If he's willing to ignore the consent he had you sign, what does it matter what it says?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 13:47:35 GMT -5
So you believe that a clearly stated consent form is inferior to one that is vague? Funny, I would think that clearly stating what you want is your best protection. I believe that what the consent form says is irrelevant if the doctor is going to ignore it as he did in this case. I never said it was inferior if clear, I said it was meaningless if he's going to ignore it. You said it was the simplest way to handle it. All it might be good for is getting damages after the fact. The simplest way is to find a doctor who's actually going to follow the signed consent form. Throwing in your own language that the doctor ignores only helps you after the doctor has ignored your wishes.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 13:56:14 GMT -5
"There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from having a circumcision while completely awake and nothing stopping anyone from Xing out parts of a consent form he does not agree with."
X'ing out parts of the consent form does you no good if the doctor ignores the consent form. What part of the consent form should be X'ed out if you agree with it all? The consent form lays out what is allowed, if the doctor decides "eh, I'll do what I want, regardless of what the patient signed off on"...then how is altering the consent form helping keep the doctor from ignoring it?
If you thought you needed to be awake during your surgery to prevent the doctor from violating your rights...then you wouldn't let that doctor operate on you in the first place.
"Really, what I see here is someone who wants to give away his own personal power and then complain later."
How are you giving away your personal power if you've signed a contract with someone which states what they are allowed to do? The complaint is that one party is violating the contract. If you and I sign a contract that states I am to paint your home, and you come back to find it demolished because I felt it was best...did your home get demolished because you 'wanted to give away your personal power then complain later'? Or did it get demolished because I violated the contract and ignored our agreement?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 14:03:25 GMT -5
"If a doctor thinks he has your consent, he will operate. If he thinks he does not, he will not."
Actually, the doctor in this case did not even argue that he had the patient's consent nor that he THOUGHT he had the patient's consent. He claimed he just did it because he thought it would be best.
The consent clearly states what the doctor will be doing. There isn't a legal need to throw in every disclaimer about things you dont' want done, because the doctor is bound by the actual consent form. When you sign contracts do you throw in disclaimers about every little thing you don't want that person to do? "You are not allowed to steal from me. You are not allowed to rape me in my sleep. You are not allowed to cut off my leg and use it as a baseball bat. You are not allowed to cut my face off and wear it as a mask on Halloween." A consent form is a legally binding contract, it is whole in it's makeup, therefore it's not necessary to throw in clauses about every item you DON'T want the doctor to do. You just need to find a doctor who believes in following the consent form.
"At any rate, without clearly stating what you want the doctor is open to a suit for damages if he DOES NOT act and damage occurs."
This is as stupid as saying "I'm hiring you to paint my house" and then feeling the need to throw in a clause that says "do not demolish my house, I don't want that done".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 14:08:07 GMT -5
"The jury concluded that he gave the surgeon permission."
No they didn't. Go read the case. The jury did not conclude that he gave the surgeon permission, they concluded that since he was going to have it removed anyways it didn't really matter.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 29, 2011 14:09:53 GMT -5
But the complainant still lost. Right, he did. That doesn't mean the surgeon acted ethically or legally. It just means that a jury let him get away with it. it's not the first time and it won't be the last.
|
|