Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good question. Why don't you volunteer yourself and we'll find out?
It might not be a bad life. You end up a moron, of course, but you don't know or care, and I could retire early. I've been at my job 31 years this month. A life as a grinning, drooling idiot with no responsibility is starting to sound attractive.
Hey, I was opening a bottle of wine before and my corkscrew broke off in the cork. I had to work out the cork with a screwdriver...if I'd slipped, I could have done a self-lobotomy right there in the kitchen!
And sued the manufacturer of the cheapo corkscrew I bought at the supermarket. And the supermarket for selling it. And the wine bottler. And the cork-tree grower.
I find it very, very hard to believe that any Dr in his/her right mind would ever risk losing their medical license by performing a tubal ligation without permission. This woman may just be looking for yet another way to get her hands on "easy" money with this lawsuit. My suspicion only, of course.
The hospital/doctors claim to have lost the signed consent form. Does anyone think it's NOT possible for the doctor/hospital to have made a real mistake simply because the victim/patient is so unsympathetic?
What does this woman's circumstances have to do with the fact that the hospital cannot find the Original signed consent form?
The hospital/doctors claim to have lost the signed consent form. Does anyone think it's NOT possible for the doctor/hospital to have made a real mistake simply because the victim/patient is so unsympathetic?
What does this woman's circumstances have to do with the fact that the hospital cannot find the Original signed consent form?
one thing that's been going through my mind: in the 3+ years since this happened, the state of MA has undergone radical changes in healthcare w/ the introduction of universal healthcare. is it possible that some major changes happened w/in the hospital itself during that time that made it more likely they lost the paper work?
not sure why this woman is so surprised by the backlash. she is practically the very definition of a "welfare queen", having more kids than she can possibly take care of (lord knows why her mom is taking care of several of her kids yet she wanted "one more" after the 9th. you'd think she's concentrate more on getting the other kids back from mom...)
I'm finding her story harder and harder to believe. if it is true, the hospital should pay (though I doubt she'll be living in the lap of luxury if she wins, not w/ all those kids and her questionable decisions) but, sorry, I just can't muster much sympathy for her
The hospital/doctors claim to have lost the signed consent form. Does anyone think it's NOT possible for the doctor/hospital to have made a real mistake simply because the victim/patient is so unsympathetic?
What does this woman's circumstances have to do with the fact that the hospital cannot find the Original signed consent form?
Is it not possible that she found out it had been lost and decided to use this situation for her benefit? I absolutely believe the Dr/hospital could have made a mistake, but it seems unlikely. Her situation has nothing to do with the consent form...other than she should have consented about 6 kids back. We as a society, who pay her bills thank you very much, SHOULD have say in how many kids she has. When she feeds, clothes and houses those kids, then she can decide.
No, I fully understand. What I disagree with you on is your assumption that the doctor and hospital are guilty for the mere fact that the judge allowed the suit to proceed. There is NO assumption of guilt by simply allowing a case to proceed. If that were the case, why proceed to trial? That also does NOT mean that this case isn't in fact frivolous. Are you telling me that all frivolous lawsuits are thrown out prior to trial? Hahaha, no, they are not.
Innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Perhaps we should look up the actual complaint filed in the circuit clerk of courts.
Do you perchance work for the ACLU?
Good idea. You find the complaint and we'll see what it has to say.
No, I don't work for the ACLU..............but it think it would be GREAT to do so. LOL I love the ACLU.
Words like "all" and "never" should be used very cautiously.
Is it not possible that she found out it had been lost and decided to use this situation for her benefit? I absolutely believe the Dr/hospital could have made a mistake, but it seems unlikely. Her situation has nothing to do with the consent form...other than she should have consented about 6 kids back. We as a society, who pay her bills thank you very much, SHOULD have say in how many kids she has. When she feeds, clothes and houses those kids, then she can decide.
I don't think "we" as a society are paying her bills EXCLUSIVELY because of the number of children she has. From reading the article, it appears that she is getting SSI because of a disability she has......and maybe some sort of public assistance for TWO of her 9 children.
Well, of course it's "possible" that she found out they lost the document, however, I really can't imagine how she found out unless they told her. And WHY would they tell her if she had not been inquiring about it in the first place.
According to the article, she was officially notified that they could not find the signed consent form AFTER her first attorney had made an official records request for it. Have you ever thought that perhaps the woman may have gone to the doctor for a check up because she wanted to have another child with her live-in (common law husband) guy, and at that point discovered that she had been sterilized? And THEN she went to an attorney, and that attorney set out to discover whether or not she had given consent to be sterilized, so he did a records request on her behalf, and received the letter from the hospital saying that they couldn't find one...... THEN EVERYBODY found that that there, in fact, was no signed consent on file. Do you suppose it could have happened that way?
So you would advocate having a strong AUTHORITARIAN government in this country which determines how many children a person can have based on criteria which change such as how much money they have? You like the idea of having GOVERNMENT make those kinds of decisions for individuals? Maybe you should look into how that sort of thing worked in China. Be careful what you wish for.
Really? You mean it would be fine with you to go to the hospital for one surgical procedure and have the doctor perform another one on you without telling you what he was doing, and without obtaining your consent?
I would be willing to wager that there is more to this story than what meets the eye. I don't see a doctor doing this without permission. I smell someone wanting a free ride.
And I'm not trying to guess the outcome of the actual court case. All I'm saying is that it is WAY more likely that the form was signed, whether she knew it or not, and it was lost, than that the docs actually performed the procedure w/o having the form. That would be true no matter what this person's history was. the fact that she filed a lawsuit once before about expired spermicide, dropped out of HS in 9th grade, and has had 9 kids over the last 20 years with ? # of dads only hurts her credibility IMO. Plus the weird IUD story...
In order for the procedure to have gone forward the consent would have to have been verified at the time in the OR Suite by the circulating nurse, the scrub nurse, the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist or CRNA who were to participate. This should be documented in the nurses notes, the anesthesia record and the physician's dictation. So even if the form itself is lost there is a record of its existence.
As for the hospital "not being able to produce" a consent. they can not give one to the press with out a signed release from the patient. It can be produced at trial under the court order for all records both sides attorneys will demand.
It might not be a bad life. You end up a moron, of course, but you don't know or care, and I could retire early. I've been at my job 31 years this month. A life as a grinning, drooling idiot with no responsibility is starting to sound attractive.
Hey, I was opening a bottle of wine before and my corkscrew broke off in the cork. I had to work out the cork with a screwdriver...if I'd slipped, I could have done a self-lobotomy right there in the kitchen!
And sued the manufacturer of the cheapo corkscrew I bought at the supermarket. And the supermarket for selling it. And the wine bottler. And the cork-tree grower.
In order for the procedure to have gone forward the consent would have to have been verified at the time in the OR Suite by the circulating nurse, the scrub nurse, the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist or CRNA who were to participate. This should be documented in the nurses notes, the anesthesia record and the physician's dictation. So even if the form itself is lost there is a record of its existence.
As for the hospital "not being able to produce" a consent. they can not give one to the press with out a signed release from the patient. It can be produced at trial under the court order for all records both sides attorneys will demand.
It would not make sense to wait until trial to produce the signed consent form. Besides, they would be required to produce it during the discovery period. Additionally, the plaintiff's lawyer, who CLEARLY had a medical records release form from the patient, made a records request to the hospital for the signed consent form and the hospital put in WRITING in a LETTER to the attorney that they could not locate any such signed written consent form. The press doesn't need to see the consent. THE LAWYERS in the case need to see if it it exists.
I believe that a lawsuit has been filed possibly alleging that all of the procedures you have outlined in the first paragraph FAILED.
However, I am wondering WHY the defendants have not produced the type of documentation (other than the consent form) which you mention in your first paragraph as proof.......of course, if they have that type of proof, then it, too, will have to be produced during discovery in the case.
You know, all these things COST MONEY......litigation costs. Lawyers don't work for free. Investigating a case and filing petitions COST MONEY. Why does the hospital want to pay big litigation costs if they have PROOF that indeed there was a signed consent form? Why would they withhold it and incur more litigation costs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
