|
Capt. Morgan posted:I don't know if California is different but in Arizona you need to complete traffic school 7 days before your court date. California is nothing like this. I won't comment further since I don't know poo poo beyond that.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm probably going to go with the police route. I live near a precinct, so I can just walk there and find someone to talk to about this. Don't the police want evidence, though? I don't have anything concrete to give them. IANAL. Do you have a smartphone? If I were you, I'd whip out the phone and start recording video/audio every time she follows you, yells at you, or mutters insults in your general direction (again IANAL, but NY is a one-party consent state so the recordings should be perfectly legal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!). This will either freak her out enough to make her shut up/stop, or if not will leave you plenty of evidence of her harassment. (Granted, there is a chance she will go even more nuts. But that's just further evidence.) You can then contact the police about the stalking and harassment (and perhaps get a restraining order). Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
aca posted:I got a speeding ticket in California going 80 in a 65. Since I was only going 15 miles over I get the chance to go to traffic school so that it doesn't have to go on my insurance. My question though is that if I try to contest it and lose the battle, do I also loose the chance to go to traffic school and have the citation removed from my record? My understanding is that if you go to trial the judge can give you traffic court but does not have too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm probably going to go with the police route. I live near a precinct, so I can just walk there and find someone to talk to about this. Don't the police want evidence, though? I don't have anything concrete to give them. Your remedies if any are very likely civil or through a residential tenancy board. What is it that you think the police will do for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm probably going to go with the police route. I live near a precinct, so I can just walk there and find someone to talk to about this. Don't the police want evidence, though? I don't have anything concrete to give them. Has she threatened you in any way, or does she just look at you menacingly and rifle through your garbage? Without some kind of threat or indication that she is too crazy to be in public, I'm not sure there is anything the cops can do. It sounds like she has a mental illness. I had a tenant with a mental illness threaten to kill me once, and that got the CIT cops out (who are trained in dealing with mental illness). But even then they couldn't take him unless he agreed to go, which luckily he did because he was enamored with my wife, and she told him to go. He ended up being staying past the temporary 10-day psychiatric hold. So I'm echoing the advise that you should either work it out with her individually, or get the landlord/tenant board involved. If it comes down to threats, then you should definitely call the cops or get a restraining order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I haven't asked her why she's creepily obsessed over hating me, because I don't want to stir up more conflict. I've maintained a strict wall of silence, even when she followed me downstairs just so that she could look through the garbage I had just thrown out. I doubt you'd get a coherent answer talking to her normally. She sounds like some lonely bitter old woman that doesn't have any friends/family. We had a lady like this in one of my old neighborhoods. Every day, she'd sit at the end of her driveway with her oxygen tank and other medical crap and scream curses at all the cars and people that walked by.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
My advice is to file a true police report that she's threatened you and made up things about you. Then next time you see her, threaten to slit her throat while she sleeps if she so much as looks at you again, and that if she tells anyone about this threat you'll call her a liar, and since you already created a papertrail they will believe you and not her, and that if she keeps her loving mouth shut you'll pretend like she doesn't exist, otherwise you will literally watch her choke to death on her own blood while she feebly grasps towards your smiling face, and to think of that smiling face before she opens her god damned mouth again. This is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, please consult with your attorney before issuing death threats so that they conform to the UCC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Speeding Camera Ticket question: I received a speeding ticket via camera for going 34 mph in a 20 mph school zone. I was driving my parents car and the ticket was sent out to them, the registered owners of the car. They are going to submit a declaration of non-responsibility form so that they will not be responsible for the ticket. However, does that mean that I will be responsible for the fine? I would only assume so but I'm not positive. The form: http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/DistrictCourt/~/media/courts/DistrictCourt/Citations/BEL_Non_Responsibility.ashx
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:Speeding Camera Ticket question: Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
IANAL, I just spent thirty seconds reading that form, but it seems pretty loving obvious to me that you're on the hook for that fine. E, f, b
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:Speeding Camera Ticket question: I'm a lawyer, but not licensed in Washington. A reading of RCW 46.64.170 shows only a renter is responsible if the registered owner of the vehicle overcomes the presumption that they were not in control of the vehicle at the time of the infraction. See RCW 46.64.170(f). I don't see anything else in the code that would make you responsible for the fine, as the only other exception that might apply to you would require a cop to write you a ticket at the time of the infraction. Edit: This makes sense for public policy because then anyone could fill out the form and lie under oath that their neighbor was actually using it when they weren't, just to screw over their neighbor. Rental companies have records of these things. Gilgamesh fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
I'm in Missouri. As I was waiting in preoperative area, a CRNA under the direct supervision of an anesthesiologist told me she was giving me an "anti-anxiety drug" to "relax" me before my surgery. My memory abruptly cuts out some moments after the injection. The chief of anesthesiology at the anesthesiology corporation told me over the phone that they administer Versed (midazolam) to almost every patient specifically so they don't have any memory of going into the operating room. I was not told they were giving me a drug to intentionally induce amnesia, I was not told the degree to which it would sedate me, and I was not given any hint that it was completely optional. I feel incredibly violated and really loving pissed off. I communicated to them in writing that I would be willing to just consider it water under the bridge if they apologized to me and agreed to in the future inform patients of the effects of Versed (i.e. that it will heavily sedate them and cause complete amnesia within seconds of injection) and that it is optional. They refused. No reasonable person would assume a drug being given to "relax" them would have a second, unstated purpose of inducing amnesia. The prescribing guidelines specifically say patients should be warned about the sedation and amnesia. I don't want their money. Medical ethics say you should tell someone when you're giving them a drug that will seriously alter their consciousness. I just want them to apologize to me and to prevent it from happening to anyone else. I don't know how to proceed from here but I think these are my options. 1. File complaints with the relevant licensing boards, ask again for an apology, an agreement to change their behavior, and maybe like $500 for wasting my time and pissing me off. I would hope the complaints would signal to them that I'm serious and not about to go away, but I am not optimistic. 2. Pursue a medical malpractice claim. I learned everything I know about med mal from the first page of Google results, ie almost nothing except the lawyer works on contingency. I'm pessimistic about my chances of finding an attorney to take the case given that the damages would probably be entirely non-economic (pain and suffering, emotional anguish, punitive, etc). Should I be pessimistic? If I told the lawyer they could take their usual hourly rate and all fees/expenses out of any settlement or award before giving me a dime - even if that would result in me getting absolutely nothing - would that substantially improve my chances of getting an attorney? Is there any advantage to going with a smaller outfit versus one that spends a lot on advertising? If I couldn't find someone who will take the case and filed a med-mal lawsuit myself, is there any chance their insurance company would tell them to just give me what I want? 3. Just take them to small claims court instead. I believe the maximum in small claims in my state is $5000. What would stop me from individually taking the nurse, the doctor, the chief of anesthesiology, the anesthesiology corporation, etc individually to small claims court for $5000 each? I don't want their money but I'll take it if they refuse to apologize. 4. As a last resort, file criminal charges. Consent is not valid if it was given under deceptive circumstances. If I offer a woman a drink that has a roofie in it, her accepting the drink (ie agreeing to be mildly relaxed/sedated) would not constitute consent to immediately blacking out, even if she had stated she was planning to drink that night until she blacked out. It would be a hard sell to the police, the prosecutor, and my conscience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
I would recommend talking to some medmal lawyers though and they will tell you what is up. Unfortunately I can't give you my specific opinion because ethics, etc etc PRO TIP If people would phrase their questions in the form of a hypothetical, more attorneys would be willing to address their hypotheticals. Once you get specific and say it is about you, we clam up (usually.) euphronius fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I'm in Missouri. The CRNA and anesthesiologist most likely consented you at the time of administration. Then you said "yes." Then you forgot everything because of the...amnesia. Patient's vary in the level of amnesia they have after general anesthesia, but it's quite common to forget what happened in the staging room and to not have memories again until the recovery room. I really don't see what the issue is here, you received general anesthesia/conscious sedation anyways. It is my opinion that you're overreacting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, law student, or in any other way qualified to do law. I have, however, had a few operations. I've gotten Versed before. I knew going in what it would do, because when they told me what drug they were gonna use I asked them about the effects. Like, "hey is this gonna make me nauseous, induce amnesia, or something like that" and they were like "no; yes" and I was like "cool." The doctors aren't psychic and don't know that you have a gigantic hangup about altering your consciousness. I'm not saying this to insult you or demean this opinion, but most people really wouldn't care, at least not this much. I know lots of people who've been in your shoes and said "good I didn't want to remember that anyway." This isn't like slipping someone a roofie at all because they're medical professionals and not a room full of bros, and you were completely aware of the fact that you were going to be put completely under anyway. And in case it wasn't clear from dingledangle's post, it's entirely possible for the anesthesia to cause you to forget stuff from before the anesthesia, or to remember bits and pieces (eg remember getting the meds but not remember signing the form and being notified of the amnesia effects beforehand).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Just curious Gobbeldygook, what procedure did you have done? The CRNA was correct in saying Versed is an anxiolytic that would sedate you just fyi
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, and please correct me if I'm wrong here... Isn't it a complete waste of time to ask a doctor/nurse/medical professional for an "apology," as that would be an admission of wrongdoing, therefore setting them up for bigger headaches, i.e. potential medical malpractice suits? It just seems like an apology/admission of guilt would be a huge no-no on their part. I don't think it's going to happen, Gobbeldygook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Skywriter posted:I am not a lawyer, and please correct me if I'm wrong here... Yes. Although you can get an apology as part of a settlement of claims and I have seen clients who just want that . . . which is bizarre to me but I am an immoral lizard being.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
dingledangle posted:The CRNA and anesthesiologist most likely consented you at the time of administration. Then you said "yes." Then you forgot everything because of the...amnesia. Patient's vary in the level of amnesia they have after general anesthesia, but it's quite common to forget what happened in the staging room and to not have memories again until the recovery room. I really don't see what the issue is here, you received general anesthesia/conscious sedation anyways. It is my opinion that you're overreacting. When I spoke with the chief of anesthesia on the phone, she never suggested I was told about the effects of Versed and then forgotten. She agreed that I wasn't told anything about the effects before it was administered. She compared telling patients about Versed causing amnesia to telling them that a ceiling tile could fall on their head during surgery, ie there was no reason to do so. Even if that possibility had slipped her mind in our phone conversation, I would think she would have brought it up in the non-apology letter she wrote me. RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Just curious Gobbeldygook, what procedure did you have done? The CRNA was correct in saying Versed is an anxiolytic that would sedate you just fyi Blue Footed Booby posted:I have, however, had a few operations. I've gotten Versed before. I knew going in what it would do, because when they told me what drug they were gonna use I asked them about the effects. Like, "hey is this gonna make me nauseous, induce amnesia, or something like that" and they were like "no; yes" and I was like "cool." "I'm going to give you an anti-anxiety drug to relax you." "A benzo?" "Yes, a benzo." "Which?" "Versed." "How much?" "2 milligrams." A pause. "Oh, I'm not injecting it yet, I was just clearing the IV." (she kind of laughed, then grabbed another needle and began to inject it) "Why that one?" "Well, it's an anxiolytic, meaning it makes you less anxious, and it's amnesic. You should be feeling it pretty soon." "Aren't all benzos amnesic?" *cut to recovery room* Yes, I was told it was an "amnesic" ... after it was already in my veins. My final, unanswered question was sparked by me wondering why she would specifically call out a benzo as amnesic because I know people sometimes black out from taking too much xanax or mixing it with alcohol whatever but they don't black out under normal circumstances. Suggesting I should have sat there in the preoperative room and refused to allow her to give me an "anti-anxiety drug" until I had grilled her about every possible side effect that I would want to know about is ridiculous. They are doctors. Part of their job is informing patients of what they need to know and I think that includes "instant amnesia". Amnesia is not a freaky rare side effect of Versed, it is an intended effect. I freely admit that most people don't mind and even appreciate the use of Versed. But let's flip it around: Since most patients want it, why am I being unreasonable by suggesting doctors should tell patients about the effects? If the patient wants it, they're happier because the doctor just said he was going to do something nice for them. If they don't, they're happy because they can say "Nah, I'm good." instead of getting a drug they don't want. Win/win! Skywriter posted:Isn't it a complete waste of time to ask a doctor/nurse/medical professional for an "apology," as that would be an admission of wrongdoing, therefore setting them up for bigger headaches, i.e. potential medical malpractice suits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Suggesting I should have sat there in the preoperative room and refused to allow her to give me an "anti-anxiety drug" until I had grilled her about every possible side effect that I would want to know about is ridiculous. They are doctors. Part of their job is informing patients of what they need to know and I think that includes "instant amnesia". Amnesia is not a freaky rare side effect of Versed, it is an intended effect. This is all certainly true, and at least now you've learned an important lesson. Grill doctors hard about informed consent, let them know you're serious about wanting to know what's going on. When I had surgery, I told them I was not to have benzos for just the reason you are so upset because I had done extensive research about anesthesiology (I actually picked out the specific drugs they were going to use). Doctors don't want to try to explain things when 98% of people are not going to understand or care. Think about explaining something to people that don't understand and don't want to understand, many times a day. How many times would you keep trying to explain things in depth? I would really let this one go and chalk it up to an important life lesson. Understand that in the medical world, most patients are passive and you need to assert yourself early and often if you want the kind of treatment you desire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yes. Some places an apology isn't an admission of guilt for that very reason, at least in civil cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Yes, that is the traditional belief of doctors: Never apologize because it makes you easier to sue, so I am not exactly surprised at the lack of apology. There's strong evidence to the contrary.. One of their citations is to a study of people filing malpractice suits which found that 1/3 of those filing suits said they would not have filed a suit if the doctor had just apologized to them. The University of Michigan cut their malpractice costs in half by apologizing more often. IMHO, that's just strong evidence that people are emo retards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
I guess I just don't understand what's so upsetting here, are you standing on principle or something? You're upset to the point of legal action over ~10 minutes of amnesia which involved you rolling to the OR, being cold as gently caress, switching beds and then having your arm burned off by propofol. You already consented to amnesia (i.e. general anesthesia) so what's the big deal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
dingledangle posted:I guess I just don't understand what's so upsetting here, are you standing on principle or something? You're upset to the point of legal action over ~10 minutes of amnesia which involved you rolling to the OR, being cold as gently caress, switching beds and then having your arm burned off by propofol. You already consented to amnesia (i.e. general anesthesia) so what's the big deal? The principle of the thing is everything to me. The appendectomy took place three days before I was scheduled to donate a kidney as the non-directed donor at the start of a kidney chain. The kidney donation process has taken eight months and a metric shitload of tests. I am willing to go to great lengths in the name of principle. LordPants posted:Some places an apology isn't an admission of guilt for that very reason, at least in civil cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Propofol hurts like a bitch and Versed is awesome can I have your next dose if you don't want it? If you knew the general anesthesia would cause unconsciousness and/or amnesia, what's the problem with the Versed? Not trying to be snarky. It just seems like the only difference is one was administered in the pre-op room and the other in the surgery. E: you can and will say things under anesthesia and have no recollection of it. Which medication causes it makes no difference. Yes, it is bothersome, but unless you're holding onto state secrets and one of the OR staff is secretly a commie agent, it's quite unimportant. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:
A medmal paralegal would hang up on you if you tried to get a medmal plaintiff's attorney to sue on this claim. You're not damaged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:One of their citations is to a study of people filing malpractice suits which found that 1/3 of those filing suits said they would not have filed a suit if the doctor had just apologized to them. The University of Michigan cut their malpractice costs in half by apologizing more often. Probably something that lawyers should take note of, as well. One of our very senior partners makes it a point to tell each and every junior about the time when he was first starting out, realized he had made a significant error on the file, and confessed to the client and advised him that he should make an insurance claim. Client appreciates the apology and the lawyer accepting responsibility, works with lawyer to find a solution, was that lawyer's single biggest client for the next 40 years. Granted, the more likely outcome is getting your balls sued off, but if that's likely either way I figure there's no sense being a weasel about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook, why are you so uncomfortable with being in an amnesic state in a medical setting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Yes. It is the principle of the thing. I have never drank until I blacked out in part because I find the idea of being able to potentially do or say things and have no recollection of them deeply unsettling. FWIW, the one time I've been under anesthesia I found the memory loss unsettling as well. I was warned about the memory loss beforehand (about the anesthesia in general; I was also given some kind of anti-anxiety drug without any warning specific to it, though being one of those patients who doesn't ask questions I can't even tell you what it was). I was also warned I might say or do things I generally wouldn't otherwise (they gave some example of aggressively hitting on a nurse), but that anything said/done would be strictly confidential. Knowing these things ahead of time doesn't make the memory loss any less disturbing. I'm a guy who forgets poo poo nonstop on a good day; both my long-term and short-term memory are terrible, so I'm no stranger to memory loss. But the fact that this chunk of memory was "taken" made it something different - there's a definite feeling of "wrongness" there. That said, get over it. Nobody was out to get you. Amnesia is a normal side effect of anesthesia. Make it clear to your doctors that you think future patients would be better served with more detailed information about each step beforehand and then get on with your life. Epilogue: Years later I was sitting around contemplating the wrongness of that chunk of missing memory and *bam* - it showed up. I can remember joking around with the nurses in the prep room and then the anasthesiologist putting me under, asking me to count back from 100. *shrug* Edit: I should note the missing post-surgery recovery room memories never came back, but that's probably a good thing. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Well, hey. I'm posting in this thread. I was just written up by a few particularly belligerent cops for public urination--specifically, on a New York City subway platform. I don't know if they personally saw me or if it was over CCTV. I suspect the latter as they didn't show up until at least 10 minutes after I appeared to urinate. It's been written up as a 153.09, which is a misdemeanor, which realllllly loving sucks as I'm a permanent resident shooting for citizenship. I'm supposed to either show up on my court date to plead guilty, or mail in a not guilty plea within 48 hours. Here's the wrinkle: the date on the summons is wrong. It's tomorrow. (And I'm not forgetting that it took place after midnight--it's tomorrow.) According to this guy who's clearly made a business of this that's grounds for a motion to dismiss on facial insufficiency. Obviously I only have 24 hours to verify that this is a ticket FROM THE FUTURE. What is my best course of action here? I really, really, really do not want this on my record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:32
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:If you knew the general anesthesia would cause unconsciousness and/or amnesia, what's the problem with the Versed? Not trying to be snarky. It just seems like the only difference is one was administered in the pre-op room and the other in the surgery. Another difference is that if someone talks or moves while they are supposed to be in general anesthesia, it means the anesthesiologist hosed-up hard-core. That is not the case with minimal/moderate sedation with Versed, as Choadmaster has pointed out. CaptainScraps posted:A medmal paralegal would hang up on you if you tried to get a medmal plaintiff's attorney to sue on this claim. You're not damaged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I'm in Missouri. Versed is commonly within the standard of care for surgery. You would need to show that they failed to meet the standard of care for a med-mal claim. Ergo, you've got no claim, ignoring even the question of your damages, which are likely minimal to none. Combined with you having amnesia, I wouldn't even bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I am willing to go to great lengths in the name of principle. There is no principle that was violated here. You need to get over it. It's dumb poo poo like this that gum up the system for ACTUAL medical malpractice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I have enough clients in the law profession (judges and lawyers alike; everyone breaks their computer sometimes) that I get a feeling for how irritated they get when someone wastes their time. I would imagine it going like this: Gobbeldygook: "They roofied me! Glargh blah blah blah!" Medical center's lawyer: "No, here is the form he signed saying he consented to the anesthesia for surgery, here's his admission on the phone that he was told about it while being wheeled in, and here's a loving dump truck of case law saying that's how it works." Judge: "Bailiff, please throw Gobbeldygook out the nearest window." Then he throws you out the window and you require more surgery. At a different hospital.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Yes. It is the principle of the thing. I have never drank until I blacked out in part because I find the idea of being able to potentially do or say things and have no recollection of them deeply unsettling. You are being self-important and grandstanding here. Your distinction that the anesthesia process should only occur in the OR and that amnesia prior to that point is a violation of medical ethics or of your legal rights as a patient shows a lack of understanding of the informed consent process which you participated prior to your emergency life-saving procedure. No ethical medical principle would guide the anesthesiologist to read the entire list of manufacturer warnings for every possible drug needed to every patient before every surgery. Your desire to make memories until the last second are odd an not in keeping with the vast majority of the population and medical practice should not be changed to accommodate a special snowflake like yourself. I would understand if the procedure was not already going to be general anesthesia with loss of control and amnesia. But you have absolutely no case here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Also, generally, as people have mentioned, One to be damaged to even consider a lawsuit. Being upset about principle is not usually a recognizable form of "damage." There are exceptions to this rule in that often there can be statutory damages for some things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Hey, just out of curiousity on this...Gobbeldygook posted:I am willing to go to great lengths in the name of principle. Let's say that he is so set on principle that he is willing to pay a medmal lawyer out of pocket to try and fight this claim. Would they take it knowing it would basically be racking up hourlies with no hope of success, or is there some sort of professional obligation to refuse the case? Or do they just have to say 'You know we are going to lose, right?' and they are ethically in the clear? I imagine that people might turn it down because who wants to deal with that anyway. We won't do no-starting cases because its just a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:You are being self-important and grandstanding here. Your distinction that the anesthesia process should only occur in the OR and that amnesia prior to that point is a violation of medical ethics or of your legal rights as a patient shows a lack of understanding of the informed consent process which you participated prior to your emergency life-saving procedure. No ethical medical principle would guide the anesthesiologist to read the entire list of manufacturer warnings for every possible drug needed to every patient before every surgery. Your desire to make memories until the last second are odd an not in keeping with the vast majority of the population and medical practice should not be changed to accommodate a special snowflake like yourself. I am not also arguing for every single side effect on the packaging to be included. I am specifically highlighting amnesia because the manufacturer also does. "4. Patients should be informed of the pharmacological effects of midazolam, such as sedation and amnesia, which in some patients may be profound." I am not arguing for every single side effect on the medication insert should be mechanically repeated to the patient because I agree, that is stupid and a waste of everyone's time. Versed's amnesic effects are a major reason why it is administered in the first place, so failing to disclose it amounts to failing to mention a major reason someone is being medicated at all. On a more practical note, if the patient doesn't know they are supposed to experience amnesia, the anesthesiologist won't necessarily know when the patient actually does remember going into the OR. The surgery was urgent but it was not such a time sensitive emergency that I needed to be operated on within minutes or risk death. My appendix hadn't burst yet, it was just awfully unhappy and making me unhappy. I was checked into the ER the night before and had slept in a non-ER room overnight. I would never complain about the good-faith actions of a doctor in a true emergency situation outside of incredibly gross negligence. Diplomaticus posted:Versed is commonly within the standard of care for surgery. You would need to show that they failed to meet the standard of care for a med-mal claim. Ergo, you've got no claim, ignoring even the question of your damages, which are likely minimal to none. Combined with you having amnesia, I wouldn't even bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
In my state to file a professional negligence action you need to file with the complaint a certification from some professional in the relevant field that the claim is meritorious. Also lawyers can be sanctioned for filing frivolous claims.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Being administered a sedative in a controlled medical setting prior to surgery is not the anesthesia equivalent of a Million Dollar Baby-style sucker punch before a boxing match. You are splitting hairs needlessly. You consented to anesthesia; anesthesia was administered to you in a safe manner consistent with standards of care in a controlled setting and no one roofied you. Did a benzodiazepine slaughter your family? P.S. people do often speak or move under general anesthesia and it is not always the result of gross negligence.  they just don't remember doing so!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:51
|
|