Medical Nightmare! - Page 2

[Sarah]

Gitti- Thank you so much for taking the time to look into the details of hat McDonalds case... it's just not fair that it is always used and example... and people don't know the full story behind it... it just makes me so sad that that woman is so famous for "taking McDonalds" when she suffered so horribly and they behaved so miserably. I understand it was not your fault for citing it- it's what you hear cited all the time... I'm sorry for posting so snarky when you made an honest mistake.

I'm curious...also- you seem to have some opinions about what people might deserve as compensation - have you looked into any of the circumcision cases of wrongful or botched circumcions? what do you think of the settlements on those lawsuits? Does the compensation seem fair to you?

Have you read about Shane Peterson?

or this case in texas:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ncfc-network/message/1182

do you think $23,000 is a fair price for suffering a purposeful genital wounding?

another question... the malpractice insurance for OBs is famously high and they CLAIM it is a crisis. What if they were offered a discount on their insurance if they refused to preform circumcisions? Do you think that the discount which could be offered would ever offset the profit gleaned from increasing the overall price of a birth by 10% for 5 minutes of work? The low value of penis injury in the settlements is part of the reason circumcision is not considered a high risk procedure... financially the profit is greater than the risk of lawsuit. If the threat of loss exceeded the profit then doctors would make their policies around what offers THEM the most protection... just as you can't get a Dr. to attend a homebirth... will the day come when a Dr. is too afraid to do a circumcision?


Love Sarah

[Frankly Speaking]

Well, Sarah, That’s a high horse you are riding in on and thank you for totally hijacking the thread and totally minimizing the impact of the original message.

You know that I am sympathetic to the problem of unnecessary hysterectomies. You know I am the one that has posted numerous times and on several boards that it has been called “The doctor’s welfare procedure.” Even that being the case, it is a different situation in that all of these women know what is happening to them and agree to the surgery. These women are all part of the decision making process and consent to the procedure and regardless of your protestations, all that I have had a close association with have been satisfied with the outcome. Outside a transsexual, no man would consent to losing all of his sexual and urinary functions and if it had been necessary, it’s not the surgeon’s decision to make. In this case, it was clearly not the surgeon’s decision to make and only shows HER flagrant disregard for the man and his rights.

You see, it is germane to the issue that this man was 68 years old. This man may very well have decided that he would rather live with a cancerous penis than to be totally emasculated. Many men make this decision. Most forms of prostate cancer are slow growing and in these cases in elderly men, they are more likely to die of something else than of their prostate cancer. They take the option of possibly living a shorter time and retaining their sexuality over the possibility of a slightly longer life and no sexuality. It is a choice that I would certainly have to weigh carefully and consider the consequences were I that age.

Your protestations of my disrespect of a woman’s uterus fall on deaf ears. I merely reported on the feelings of the women I know and their overwhelming attitude is that it was a neutral or positive experience, not considering the pain of the surgery. Their personal perception of the effect on them is not your evaluation to make just as I don’t make the personal evaluation of an adult man who chooses circumcision. Certainly in both cases, the decision is made in something of an information vacuum and regardless of the damage they don’t perceive, it is their decision to make and if they perceive benefits, that is their perception. That is what they see as truth. It is also germane to the discussion that all of these women in my personal experience had all of the children they intended to have so their fertility was not an issue just as a man who has chosen a vasectomy is not concerned with retaining his fertility.

I understand that you believe the tides turn to the function of your uterus and the solar system revolves around it. Be happy that it will not be surreptitiously taken from you with no input from you at all. Be happy that if it is diseased and removal is necessary for your health and life, that it will be your decision whether it is removed or not. Most of all, please get off of my case because I report the feelings and experiences of women who have had that experience. That in no way indicates disrespect for women. If you want to promote the issues of women, don’t alienate your allies. You need all of the allies you can get. At this point, I am having grave misgivings about my support of your causes.

Your accusation that I do not value the sex organs of women is preposterous. You know that is not the case. Go ahead and mount your campaign. I will gladly join you in it and support your efforts, just don’t make me the brunt of your angst toward those who are truly responsible. I will then become an adversary instead of an ally.






Frank

[Frankly Speaking]

The cost of compensating medical malpractice victims is simply a red herring thrown out by the insurance companies to justify higher premiums and unjustly limit compensation to the victims. The insurance industry is trying to buy your congressman and state representatives and will not give up until it is done.

If you look at the reality of the situation, you will see that medical malpractice is a very real issue. The medical assocations are reluctant to open their files to public scrutiny and will defend an incompetent doctor until the bitter end. They have successfully lobbied the lawmakers to keep the damaging evidence hidden and control the flow of information through their own organizations instead of through the appropriate governmental agencies. This makes it almost impossible to get a doctor's license pulled for ineptitude.

The multimillion dollar lawsuits are vastly over stated. In my own state, there is only one every 5 or 6 years and the thing that is not reported is that the vast majority of these are reduced on appeal. The truth is that only slightly over 1% of the victims of medical malpractice ever file suit against those doctors who injure them. Of those, only a portion win their suits and the multi million dollar awards are highly unusual. It is an infintessimal amount of the cost of doing business. It has almost no effect on the bottom line of the insurance companies or the premiums the doctors pay.

It must also be remembered that the people who award these large awards are people just like you and me. Normal every day people who have no interest in the case and no investment until they are picked from the jury pool. They then hear all of the details of the case and the testimony from both sides and make a decision of how much harm the victim has endured and decide what that harm is worth to the victim. That is the beauty of our system of juris prudence and a beauty that the insurance companies are trying to subvert.

Just like the lady who spilled the coffee, you hear the insurance company's side presented to the media and assume that the woman suffered an inconsequential injury and was awarded millions of dollars for it. When the full truth comes out, the award makes a lot more sense. The jury saw that McDonalds was well aware of the problem, had had more than 700 previous cases and had done nothing to resolve the issue. They saw that this woman suffered grevious injuries and terrible pain. they saw that this woman at her age could have died from the surgery that was necessary because of McDonald's refusal to do the right thing. They saw that if they awarded the victim only the cost of her medical expenses, it wouldn't even be a slap on the hand. McDonalds had shown a flagrant disregard for the safety of their customers and had no intention of makeing any changes. The jury considered the size of the corporation and awarded damages of sufficient magnitude to be a punishment for a corporation of that size. If the award had been for $100,000.00, McDonalds would not have even noticed it and would have done nothing to change their practices just as they had done with the previous 700 cases. If this woman's case had been limited to $250,000.00 as the insurance companies wish, McDonalds would still be serving 185 degree coffee and the public would not even be aware of the issue.

Just as the circumcision industry continues to ignore circumcision with the $23,000.00 awards, they will pay attention to the $25 million suit that has been filed in New York. This is a strong message that there is risk in their inappropriate behavior and that risk is significant.

If we accept the insurance industries argument that these cases are damaging the medical profession and allow them to impose the caps, we lose our voice against the profiteering and incompetency. The real truth behind the cost of malpractice insurance "crisis" is that the insurance industry invested heavily in the stock market and at the same time participated in competitive suicide with each other and now that they have lost their investment in the stock market, they are trying to place the blame on our judicial system in order to shore up their obscene profits and unethical practices. If you look at the cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums, they are not out of line with other business insurance premiums. It's just that doctors are still expecting to make $400,000.00 per year and that is not a realistic expectation with the current economy. The insurance companies want to make the same money they made during the heyday of the stock market and it's internet bubble and that's not going to happen.

The best thing is to let the jury system do what it does best. That is to listen carefully to each side's argument and carefully consider the magnitude of the injury to the victim and compensate them fairly and to consider the conduct of the defendant and the appropriate punishment for their actions. It's a system that works regardless of what the insurance industry and medical profession says. Limits on malpractice awards will not have a significant impact on insurance premiums or the ability of incompentent doctors to continue to practice.




Frank

[candiland]

To assert that a man’s toe can be cut off and stitched to his crotch and he will be good as new

I think I just peed my pants.
Not that your analogy didn't make good sense, Frank, but just the visualization of some guy with a toe for a peenie...

Oh, geez, get my Depends... here I go again.....

[Frankly Speaking]

I'm curious if he will ever need a pedicure . . . . . or would it be a penicure?




Frank

[alissakae]

Oh Frank!

Now I need Depends too!