Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] heartbreaker (literally)

Expand Messages
  • Barbara Dennis
    Dear Jury Doctor: The questions are: Who signed the consent for the procedures? Where were the suing daughter and husband before hospitalization? Who, other
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 14, 2002
      Dear Jury Doctor:
      The questions are: Who signed the consent for the procedures?
      Where were the "suing" daughter and husband
      before hospitalization?
      Who, other than the patient knew of her
      chest pain?

      Because: if Religion was a factor in the procedures' outcome-the daughter
      and husband had that information.
      If the patient was unable to sign for the procedures, some one had to
      sign. If it was that emergent, and no consent obtained-then the surgeon
      took on the risk based on the attempt to save her life. But the
      signatures on that consent form hold the responsibility. It has the risk
      clearly spelled out.
      From the information in your report-the doctors were fighting a losing
      battle due to the damaged condition of the heart-7 years of neglect.
      Everything else was an emergency attempt to repair.
      Other considerations are:
      The Living Will- all 50 year old people must have.
      The definition of Fainting.
      No Vital Signs based on Sandy's normal was available-No one knew what her
      normal was -she had been ill for 7 years. At best, text book norms
      were used as a baseline.
      The cause of death was the same as the cause of the fainting-lack of
      oxygenated blood caused by a blocked artery.
      And had she been alone at home-unattended-no diagnosis, no
      hospitalization, no treatment at all-what would the cause of death be?
      Every thing done after she was admitted required consent, explanation,
      and probable outcome of each procedure performed, and death is always a
      probable outcome of invasive procedures.

      A Shock-Trauma admission would not have these legal issues.
      And as for suing the doctors and nurses for providing more care for you
      than you provided for yourself, being more responsible for you, than you
      were for yourself, for being there, trying to undo your damage to
      trying to keep some one alive, when the patient had no intentions of
      saving her own life-through her religious beliefs, and her medical
      And a family who neglected the chest pains, and the other symptoms that
      presented themselves over the seven years-in todays 'medical savvy
      environment-were just waiting for this to occur.
      If the doctors had done nothing for the patient-just as the patient did
      for herself- it would be called negligence. Their harm was in trying to
      do NO HARM, when no matter what they did-as far as the patient was
      concerned-would have been harmful-as planned by the patient and family. A
      reasonable jury would think this through, and recognize what the
      daughter, and the husband are doing-cashing in on a woman neither of them
      cared enough about to seek medical attention for EIGHT YEARS AGO-when
      something preventive could have been done.
      No malice here, just calling it as I read it. 'suicide but make someone

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.