Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:
1. Where do you get this nonsense?
|
Why then are surgeons insistent that you sign this consent form? It obviously protects them from legal recourse by an unhappy patient. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
 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. 
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? 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. Unfortunately, they make light of the adverse effects that can be permanent by classifying them as temporary symptoms. Do you see the spin?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Here's a thumbnail sketch of how it works. There are two potential causes of action that one must generally consider in a heathcare-gone-awry situation. (There are more than two, but these two are the most widely applicable.) The first is professional negligence. Consent forms have no effect at all on negligence claims. Courts have held countless times that signing a consent form does not constitute the patient's acquiescence in receiving substandard medical care. That proposition is so well established that you might even be able to find something about it on Ranger Mike's search engine.
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.
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; afterall telling patients that dry eyes, halos, starbursts, double vision is temporary is a failure to inform. In fact it's an outright deception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
2. Why are you so resistant to using the list? |
Because the list doesn't apply here. |
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.  (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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Waxler said, "How many eyes will be ruined for the sake of making a living?"
|
See there? What a difference a comma and a set of quote marks can make! |
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin"
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
|
I am not here to condemn the FDA as a regulatory entity other than to say most people take for granted that when a procedure is given approval that means it is safe. It is hard to draw the line as to who owns most of the responsibility for the growing number of people whose lives have been devastated. Somewhere along the line the ethical ball has been dropped. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by "Steven Maturin
Alrighty then! Obfuscation > candor. I stand corrected.
|
What's that suppose to mean?
As Waxler said, he gave his approval based on the data given by the laser manufacturers. And the public puts their trust in this approval otherwise what good is it?