[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can just as easily say the same about you.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

OH YES YOU DO! Don't even go there Maturin cuz I'm not going to get sucked into a debate as to how qualified you seem to be on subjects you know very little about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you a malpractice lawyer?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Nah. I got involved in dozens of civil lawsuits against physicians and other healthcare providers just for the laughs.

So are you or aren't you? You're so sarcastic it makes it difficult to converse with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

First of all, you haven't "gathered" anything. You made all this up.

No I did not.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

So what is the patient accepting if not to agree that he will take responsibility for any unforeseen risks that occur not including negligence.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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

What are you talking about? There are indications as to whether a doctor was negligent. Those would not fall under the signed consent form.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just sickened by what I've learned regarding this procedure.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Made-up stream-of-consciousness collection of words noted.

Not at all. I have listened to people who said they were perfect candidates for the procedure meaning they didn't have large pupils; they didn't have dry eyes; they didn't have any of the warning signs that would indicate they were not good candidates. When someone hears the good news, they don't take the complication risk seriously because they don't believe it applies to them.

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;

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

What isn't "being honored"?

The claim because surely many of these doctors are giving inadequate disclosure.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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.

Right, then the patient would be left with nothing. And I believe misrepresenting the seriousness of the risks (which could be permanent) are being withheld. I don't believe if people knew what they could be left with just so they don't have to wear glasses, they would think twice. That's what I'm upset about. A person can do what he wants, but it's not a true consent if he doesn't have all the facts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have zero to no 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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You made all that up, every last bit of it.

I'm just repeating what you said. You can still sue under certain conditions.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

First off, @"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."

I would assume that most lawsuits have to do with negligence of some kind. They wouldn't help in a case where a person signed away his rights by claiming he understands that there are risks yet still wants to go forward. I don't think a person would win unless it was proved that there was fraud. When a doctor doesn't spell out the permanent nature of the side effects which can be intolerable, and they say the symptoms are most likely temporary, that's fraud.

Originally Posted by Steven Maturin

Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.

What's that suppose to mean?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It's like conversing with a bag of hammers.

At least I'm honest. So elaborate.