Soulive said:Before the injection knocked me out, I would've knocked them out by inserting my foot in their ass...
Honestly, I can see it either way, but we don't know nearly enough about what actually transpired to make that judgment. Melana is right...not enough information!e lo said:Wow. I absolutely disagree. The doctors were performing an important test, and they had a suddenly combative patient, endangering them all. I strongly feel that they behaved appropriately.
EdWort said:Reminds me of this shirt.
EvilTOJ said:E lo, that's all well and good, but until today I have never heard of such a procedure. How much you wanna bet that most of the public would never equate "Check to see if my spine is broken" with "Hey the best way to check that is to sodomize me!" It's very counter intuitive to me, Mr. Joe Public. I'm actually curious, how does a finger up the butt check for spinal injury? Urethral disruption I kinda get because you can check the prostate that way, and is GI bleed mean gastrointestional bleeding?
Also, a patient has the right to refuse treatment for anything even if it's at their detriment. He told them not to do that, and they beat him, handcuffed and sedated him to do it anyways. I believe that's what he's suing them about.
the_bird said:Incidentally, how immature is it of me that when I was listening to the astronomy show on NPR, I couldn't stop laughing when they said "Uranus looks like a little star"...
EvilTOJ said:E lo, that's all well and good, but until today I have never heard of such a procedure. How much you wanna bet that most of the public would never equate "Check to see if my spine is broken" with "Hey the best way to check that is to sodomize me!" It's very counter intuitive to me, Mr. Joe Public. I'm actually curious, how does a finger up the butt check for spinal injury?
the_bird said:The "before" picture still looks a little bit on the large side, no?
e lo said:Wow. I absolutely disagree. The doctors were performing an important test, and they had a suddenly combative patient, endangering them all.
Again.... whether the patient was in fact of sound mind is the thing in question here from my (admittedly biased) viewpoint. If the doctors had a legitimate reason to suspect lower spinal injury and a patient of questionable mental status (which, after head trauma, he most likely was), then they were acting in the best interest of the patient in accordance with their medical judgment and SOPs.srm775 said:True, they were doing a completely legitimate test ... THAT HE REFUSED. The patient, of sound mind, has absolute right of refusal for ANY treatment. A voluntary patient refused the procedure was restrained and given a procedure against his will.
Isn't the first part of the Hippocratic oath "to first do no harm"?
EdWort said:This got way out of hand and could have been resolved with a signature, but nooooo, the guy ends up violated, injured and imprisoned against his will. I can hear the ka-ching ka-ching of the jackpot right now.
EdWort said:I don't care what the doctors say, if I refuse a treatment and do not give consent and they go ahead and force it anyway, they are going to lose big time. Make me sign the refusal, but don't bend me over for an exam where I can feel two hands on my shoulders at the same time.
This got way out of hand and could have been resolved with a signature, but nooooo, the guy ends up violated, injured and imprisoned against his will. I can hear the ka-ching ka-ching of the jackpot right now.
The real winner of this sad event will be the guys lawyer.
Jester369 said:Yeah, but if a patient signs the form and the hospital doesn't do the procedure and it turns out they do have a spinal injury, how many would sue anyway, saying they should have known that he was not capable of making the decision due to the head injury?
A signature on a form means zero if the signer is not in a condition to decide. It all comes down to assessing the patients current ability to make reasoned decisions, and even then people always seem to be looking for the malpractice lottery. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wonder why people even want to become doctors anymore.
I seriously doubt the hospital staff looked at this guy and said "hey, lets have a little fun with him!"
e lo said:Again.... whether the patient was in fact of sound mind is the thing in question here from my (admittedly biased) viewpoint. If the doctors had a legitimate reason to suspect lower spinal injury and a patient of questionable mental status (which, after head trauma, he most likely was), then they were acting in the best interest of the patient in accordance with their medical judgment and SOPs.
e lo said:And no, technically that phrase appears nowhere in the Hippocratic oath. Feel free to look it up. It is, of course, one of the guiding tenets of medical care. However, if that phrase was in the oath, not assessing a Pt for an injury with paraplegia as a potential sequella would, without question, violate that portion of it.
zoebisch01 said:Someone like EdWort probably would say "well hell I signed it, that was my choice" where other people could easily see the get-something-out-of-the-deal aspect and be like "I was incapable of making a decision".
srm775 said:I'm no doctor, but wouldn't the fact that he actively resisted (including punching out one of the doctors), enough to have to be restrained and sedated, kind of prove the fact he didn't have a serious spinal injury? At least, one that wasn't threatening immediate paralysis?
EdWort said:Darn right! Cause I'm a principle based kind of guy. Too many folks sue for whatever. Accidents happen, but still, if I was that guy and I told them to stay away from my rear and they forced me they would be looking at a court date no matter what.
I agree and futhermore, if they were willing to heavily sedate the guy, they couldn't have been TOO worried about his skull.srm775 said:I'm no doctor, but wouldn't the fact that he actively resisted (including punching out one of the doctors), enough to have to be restrained and sedated, kind of prove the fact he didn't have a serious spinal injury? At least, one that wasn't threatening immediate paralysis?
Docapi said:However, the fact that he refused a medically necessary check that could potentially save him from being crippled for life to the extent of becoming physically violence- for no other apparent reason than homophobia and lack of confidence in his manhood- IMHO does lend credence to the theory that he was not of sound mind or capable of making his own decisions.
It sounds to me like he was too drunk or high to be capable of sound judgement (we KNOW he had a head injury)- hence the hospital staff decided to treat him without consent after he basically PROVED he did not have sound judgement.
kornkob said:All to often exerts in any given field think they know better than their customers
kornkob said:I wish there was more competition in the medical field so that ******* docs could feel the pinch when their behavior drove off customers.[quote/]
Open up a phone book once. Check out the number of doctors,hospitals, clinics, specialists, etc. I don't think it is possible for one statement to be more wrong.
c.n.budz said:Assuming he didn't want the exam due to homophobia is going a bit far. It seems that he felt the exam wasn't necessary for his injury. He may have been wrong about that, but that was point of view.
And, it seems from the article, that the injury happened on the job so he most likely wasn't drunk or high
Docapi said:No, the injury could easily be there that could cause paralysis without actually having done so yet.
Docapi said:However, the fact that he refused a medically necessary check that could potentially save him from being crippled for life to the extent of becoming physically violence- for no other apparent reason than homophobia and lack of confidence in his manhood- IMHO does lend credence to the theory that he was not of sound mind or capable of making his own decisions.
It sounds to me like he was too drunk or high to be capable of sound judgement (we KNOW he had a head injury)- hence the hospital staff decided to treat him without consent after he basically PROVED he did not have sound judgement.
Melana said:Something tells me that there is more to that story....
Still, there is NO excuse for their actions.
srm775 said:Actually, it sounds like you didn't read the article. It was a work related injury.
Docapi said:Think about it- who would YOU rather have for a doctor? The one that says "I'm going to save this person no matter what it takes" or the one that says "Well, gee whiz- I could try this and save him, but that treatment might possibly let me in for a lawsuit- better off to let him die"?
Docapi said:He was violently refusing a very simple check that could save him from being crippled for life.
THAT- no matter what his reasons were- shows an acute lack of ability to make sound decisions.
kornkob said:I agree and futhermore, if they were willing to heavily sedate the guy, they couldn't have been TOO worried about his skull.
All to often exerts in any given field think they know better than their customers and those with any amount of authority or power over another person will trend toward exercising that authority as much as possible. In my experience doctors in ERs are among the worst (with police being the leaders in that area). I've not only been subject to their behavior but watched them do the same to other people.
It's a tough job, yeah, I get that. And they are very skilled, I get that. However, the level of calousness and bullying that goes on in an ER is, frankly, a bunch of crap.
I wish there was more competition in the medical field so that ******* docs could feel the pinch when their behavior drove off customers.
Beerthoven said:From the Stanford Law Center,Competency to Make Medical Decisions
A patient is incompetent if unable to do the following: (1) respond knowingly and intelligently to questions about recommended treatment; (2) participate in treatment decisions by means of rational thought processes; and (3) understand the items of minimum basic medical treatment information with respect to that treatment. Basic medical treatment information includes: the nature and seriousness of the illness, the nature of the treatment, the probable degree and duration of any benefits and risks of any medical intervention that is being recommended by the person's health care providers, and the consequences of lack of treatment, and the nature, risks, and benefits of any reasonable alternatives."
Enter your email address to join: