87
By Anonymous - / Sunday 11 September 2016 05:52 / United States
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

That is true. In my opinion I believe it's still their fault due to the fact Op went in for a colonoscopy and they ended up perforating the patient. Might have been an accident, but caused the patient to have to use a colostomy bag for six months. To me that seems like it should be paid for.

Reply

nurse here. i wouldnt say perforating the colon is a 'rare' complication. its uncommon, but definitely not rare. the repair surgery is also not something the OP should have to wait for. as soon as the surgeons were aware, they should have scheduled an emergency repair asap. before surgery you generally sign a form saying you've been notified of any complications, which means you cant take legal action for an accident. which is was, because unless the surgeon is stupid, they wouldnt perforate a

Reply

Right but is it? There are only two circumstances based on what the OP says where it's actually their mistake. 1) It's a rare complication like they said that could happen and they failed to disclose that either verbally or in written form Or 2) The OP misspoke and it's not a rare complication but them actually screwing up the procedure. If they gave her literature though then it's on her not them. Most procedures a Dr. will go over the common complications with you in the office but giv

Reply

I'm wondering too why there's no recourse (though I don't think it's implied that common ones do have one) OP, did an actual lawyer tell you that or just the hospital?

Reply

I think what he meant is that is is a known (albeit rare) complication that can happen (and mostly happens) without the doctor making a mistake. If it was something that never happened before he could probably sue.

Reply

Ya, op signed the consent forms which prevents him from taking legal action. As #17 said, you can still sue (even though you signed) as long as you can prove the doctor was negligent. However, in this case, op would have no proof of that. It's known that this complication can happen (although fairly rare) and he wouldn't be able to prove that the doctor did anything specific or negligent that caused this complication. Now if he knew the doctor was drunk or something, then he could sue.

Reply

Honestly this sickens us in the medical field. As soon as one complication happens everyone looks to sue. It is an absolute joke. Surgeries are not cut and dry and routine, everyone's anatomy is different. The complications are discussed with the patient as well, and yes consent is obtained. The doctors don't do this willingly, they are very distraught when stuff like this happens too. Yes this sucks, though we aren't talking death here or serious loss, we are talking about a few months with a c

Reply

#29. While what you said is true, I imagine that few months with a colostomy bag is going to be more than just a minor inconvenience and that she'll not likely be refunded for her botched colonoscopy. Additionally, she'll have to pay for the repair procedure (premiums, deductable, and copays). While it's true that no one wins in this situation OP really gets the shit end of the stick.

Reply

#29. While what you said is true, I imagine that few months with a colostomy bag is going to be more than just a minor inconvenience and that she'll not likely be refunded for her botched colonoscopy. Additionally, she'll have to pay for the repair procedure (premiums, deductable, and copays). While it's true that no one wins in this situation OP really gets the shit end of the stick.

Reply

You can always sue. You sign those papers under duress, so what you agree to is null and void. No matter how sleazy the lawyer is, he won't take your case unless he knows there's a high probability of winning.

Reply

What duress? You always have a choice, just sit at home (with the lawyer) and sue the Grim Reaper when he comes, or maybe try and get a restraining order against him...

Reply

#56, no, you don't have a choice. Your doctor orders you to get a colonoscopy -- nobody gets one for shits and giggles. After a day or two of "prep" (for the uninitiated, that means an induced case of diarrhea), you go in and just before you go under anesthesia, they shove these papers in your face. You don't really have "free will" to say, "Oh, no, I do not accept that you may perforate my colon!" This is why malpractice cases for this are often successful.

Reply

Lol #57, as physicians we give our professional opinions on medical treatment. Patients ultimately have the final say in their medical care. So yes, we advise screening colonoscopies but at the end of the day, the patient is free to decline.

Reply

I don't know where you live but in most places a doctor can't really order you to do anything. If you don't want a colonoscopy you can just go home. If you don't want to interact with doctors, don't go to one in the first place. There are plenty of choices one can make. But obviously (at least I think it should be obvious) you cannot say: "I want the procedure done but you have to pinky swear that I won't have a known complication" or "I don't accept the risks, just do the procedu

Reply

I did some actual research. People do successfully sue physicians for perforations that occur during colonoscopies. Apparently, these are usually a result of carelessness or improper procedure. Just because this complication is listed as a possibility doesn't absolve the doctor of liability.

Reply

Again though, the doctor would have to have been negligent and you'd probably have to prove that. But as patients, we have to accept that there are huge risks and complications that can come from surgery or any type of medical procedure. In my opinion, we also have to realize how lucky we are to have such advanced technologies at our disposal and that we are asking these doctors to save us from diseases, and things that if untreated would leave us with pain, a horrible quality of life, and most

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

The procedure she had isn't surgery. A colonoscopy is "colon scoping" aka they use a miniature camera on a little stick to examine the end of the intestinal tract. They might not even have found out until later that it had been perforated unless they noticed while removing the camera. However, I don't know why OP says she can't have the surgery for six months. They should be able to do it right away, so I'm assuming that's a funding or bureaucracy thing.

Reply

I just worked in colorectal. They perforation can't heal while the colon is functioning and there's a hole - you don't want faeces in your abdominal cavity. So a stoma is made and the final part of the colon is left to heal. You need 6 months for the whole healing process before its safe and likely to be a successful reversal of the stoma. Hope this makes things clearer :) I'd comment on the suing part but I'm in the UK so I'd probably be wrong.

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

Reply

If it's a known risk that was made clear to OP beforehand, and has nothing to do with the doctor doing anything wrong, then that would be a waste of money. And if OP did win that case it would just show how screwed up our legal system is.

Reply

As #55 mentioned, there is nothing legally they can do if it was stated as a risk of the procedure beforehand (and wasn't due to doctor negligence). There is a reason people have to sign papers before any procedure because if everyone did what you suggested (sue) every time one of the known outcomes, however rare, happened, then doctors wouldn't do life-saving procedures at all. A colonoscopy might not seem like a life-saving procedure, but it's ability to detect colon cancer does save lives.

Loading data…