View Single Post
  #58  
Old 10-12-2016, 10:27 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
:facepalm: I'll never understand your need to hold forth on subjects about which you know nothing.
I can just as easily say the same about you. :giggle:
I suppose you could, but your statement would be false. As we both know, I'm careful to avoid pontificating about subjects on which I know nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
It's simply not true signing a consent form leaves the patient "no recourse to sue for damages." I've been involved in dozens upon dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers over the years. In every one of those cases the patient signed a consent form. In exactly none of those cases did the consent form preclude recovery.
Are you a malpractice lawyer?
Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
From what I've gathered it would be extremely difficult to win a case if you signed a form where you accepted the potential risks, as long as there was no clear negligence on the part of the surgeon.
First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.

Second, there is no medical consent form anywhere by which the patient affirms that "I accept all potential risks." Such a form wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Third, "clear negligence" isn't the test for anything.

Fourth, you're making all this up as you go along. :yup: I can't imagine who you think you're fooling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
The second is failure to obtain informed consent. That cause of action authorizes an injured patient to recover where: (1) the doctor provided treatment to the patient; (2) the doctor failed to obtain the patient's informed consent in advance; (3) a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment had s/he been property informed; and (4) the doctor's failure to obtain informed consent caused damages.
Sadly, even when a consent form is given, the patient doesn't believe it is relevant in his case because he's told he's a perfect candidate for the surgery, which makes reading about the potential complications as unnecessary. He believes it doesn't apply to him.
Made-up stream-of-consciousness collection of words noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Clearly, a signed consent form is relevant to the informed consent claim, but it doesn't automatically foreclose recovery. The patient can still recover if the information on the form, and/or any disclosures the doctor provided verbally, are inadequate. A complete failure to inform the patient of the risk that ultimately materialized would be one example of an arguably inadequate disclosure.

So no, it is not the case that "[w]hen you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages."
I'm not sure why they aren't being honored;
What isn't "being honored"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.
Yes. If in fact they're knowingly misrepresenting the risks with intent to induce consent, they're not just failing to obtain informed consent but also committing the intentional tort of fraud. A lawyer has to be careful about how s/he pleads these things, though, since ya don't want to give the doctor's professional liability insurer a basis for denying coverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Of course the list applies here. You wrote, "When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages." That's a law-related claim you clearly made up from whole cloth. Distinguishing actual legal reasoning from made-up crapola is the reason ChuckF devised the list. :yup: (That, and, lulz)
You have zero to none recourse if you sign that you understand the risks, which are unrelated to negligence or never having received the form. Most lawsuits fall outside of these two categories.
:laugh:

You made all that up, every last bit of it. First off, :lol:@"zero to none." Also, as noted above, there's no such thing as a consent form that says "I understand all the risks." It's good to see your seeming acknowledgement that consent forms have no effect on negligence claims. That's progress. And, of course, you have no earthly idea whatsoever where "most lawsuits fall."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Steven Maturin
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
What's that suppose to mean? :confused:
It's like conversing with a bag of hammers.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-13-2016), But (10-12-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), chunksmediocrites (10-19-2016), JoeP (10-13-2016), Stormlight (10-14-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), thedoc (10-13-2016)
 
Page generated in 0.42648 seconds with 11 queries