child dies after workers refuse to fix his medicaid record

[Xchel]

except not all asthma is life threatening and in fact rarely is.

 

[MeBelle]

Mom could have brought the child to an ER, Medicaid eligible or not, and they would have given the child enough medication to tide them over for while.
Also, if Mom used the same pharmacy for the same child for the same condition, most decent pharmacists would also have given Mom the medication until the issue was straightened out.

 

[koshergrl]

Well mom's either an idiot, or she didn't suspect the child was as bad as he was. Either way, it's not the fault of a pencil pusher.

 

[Xchel]

Mom could have brought the child to an ER, Medicaid eligible or not, and they would have given the child enough medication to tide them over for while.
Also, if Mom used the same pharmacy for the same child for the same condition, most decent pharmacists would also have given Mom the medication until the issue was straightened out.

Yeah sit in an ER for 15 hours sometime waiting in their triage unit to be tended to and then they just write you a script for the same medicine, they don't give it to you.

 

[geauxtohell]

You're in Honduras, according to your profile. I have no idea what medical care is like there. Here, we have informed consent laws, meaning that a doctor is required to make sure a patient is fully informed about the risks and benefits of a treatment or procedure before he (the patient) can consent to it. Which would mean, of course, that if the illness that is being treated is life-threatening, the patient would need to know that.

A procedure is not an illness and is not pharmacologic medical treatment. Informed concent in no way legally obligates a doctor to run down the risks and benefits of every medication they write a script for.

It also doesn't legally obligate a doctor to teach patients pathology. I am all for educating patients, but you are confusing the notion of "informed consent".

Informed consent means I can't do an invasive procedure on you without your permission. I has nothing to do with standard medical treatement.

Dear Lord, rounds would take forever if we had to obtain informed consent before we changed a patient's medication regimen.

The exception would be certain experimental drugs that are not FDA approved.

If you believe any of that you need to Google informed consent + lawsuit. Informed consent is a BIG deal. If you work in an accredited facility your accrediting body will eat you alive for not obtaining it, yes, even for new scripts. I have been a prescriber for 16 years and you most certainly DO have to advise patients of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. Unless, of course, your license and your livelihood mean nothing to you.

I guess I'll have to brush up. It's not been a practice I've observed at any of the hospitals I've rotated through. Maybe they sign a blanket statement before admission. I don't know. We certainly obtain consent before any procedures or surgeries, but not for writing scripts. It doesn't seem to be the standard of care where I am at (and it's not my license on the line) nor do we have to tell someone with asthma about ever single facet of the disease.

*Edit*: Just asked the wife and pulled her lawbook off the shelf:

Schloendorf v. Society of New York Hospital (1914): basically states that every adult human being has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and involved surgery. I quickly flipped through the chapter and couldn't get any real information about basic medical management. There was one vignette about anti-psychotics and the psychotic patient but that didn't seem relevant. I certainly didn't find any cases or decisions that demanded basical medical management fell under informed consent. I would think consent would be implied upon filling the script or agreeing to admission. I don't know. You are a lawyer and a practitioner, so if you have the relevant case law or what not, I'd be happy to look at it. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong and want to fix any discrepancies before I make a mistake.

I certainly didn't see anything in there where a Dr. had a legal duty to go over every single facet of a disease. In other words, if her Dr. didn't tell her that her son could die of asthma, I don't think she could sue him on that basis.

 

[geauxtohell]

Mom could have brought the child to an ER, Medicaid eligible or not, and they would have given the child enough medication to tide them over for while.
Also, if Mom used the same pharmacy for the same child for the same condition, most decent pharmacists would also have given Mom the medication until the issue was straightened out.

Yeah sit in an ER for 15 hours sometime waiting in their triage unit to be tended to and then they just write you a script for the same medicine, they don't give it to you.

That's not true. People who come to EDs for care are triaged. The people that wait for 15 hours are the people who have minor conditions and shouldn't be in the ER. Of course more severe people are going to jump them in line, that is the point of an ER. Any child that came in in respiratory distress would instantly go back for a medical resuscitation. You don't mess around with the airway.

And any patient who comes to the ER is owed a survey and exam under EMTALA. They can't just hand you a script without you being seen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

except not all asthma is life threatening and in fact rarely is.

I didn't say "was". I said "potentially". And that's no exception to informed consent laws. Even if your asthma isn't currently serious, you still need to know that it could become so in order to be properly informed about the necessity of following your treatment program carefully.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mom could have brought the child to an ER, Medicaid eligible or not, and they would have given the child enough medication to tide them over for while.
Also, if Mom used the same pharmacy for the same child for the same condition, most decent pharmacists would also have given Mom the medication until the issue was straightened out.

Yeah sit in an ER for 15 hours sometime waiting in their triage unit to be tended to and then they just write you a script for the same medicine, they don't give it to you.

Are you just TRYING to be stupid, or is this a natural talent for you?

They don't make you "sit in an ER for 15 hours" when you present with urgent and/or life-threatening symptoms. Don't make a bigger fool of yourself publicly than you absolutely have to.

 

[Xchel]

Mom could have brought the child to an ER, Medicaid eligible or not, and they would have given the child enough medication to tide them over for while.
Also, if Mom used the same pharmacy for the same child for the same condition, most decent pharmacists would also have given Mom the medication until the issue was straightened out.

Yeah sit in an ER for 15 hours sometime waiting in their triage unit to be tended to and then they just write you a script for the same medicine, they don't give it to you.

That's not true. People who come to EDs for care are triaged. The people that wait for 15 hours are the people who have minor conditions and shouldn't be in the ER. Of course more severe people are going to jump them in line, that is the point of an ER. Any child that came in in respiratory distress would instantly go back for a medical resuscitation. You don't mess around with the airway.

And any patient who comes to the ER is owed a survey and exam under EMTALA. They can't just hand you a script without you being seen.

It took them 15 hours to get my son in for RSV and he was 2 years old..that is respiratory distress. I picked the 15 hours on purpose. I am pointing out though that getting them into the ER is going to do nothing except get them another script..she already had a script she didn't need another one.

 

[Sunshine]

A procedure is not an illness and is not pharmacologic medical treatment. Informed concent in no way legally obligates a doctor to run down the risks and benefits of every medication they write a script for.

It also doesn't legally obligate a doctor to teach patients pathology. I am all for educating patients, but you are confusing the notion of "informed consent".

Informed consent means I can't do an invasive procedure on you without your permission. I has nothing to do with standard medical treatement.

Dear Lord, rounds would take forever if we had to obtain informed consent before we changed a patient's medication regimen.

The exception would be certain experimental drugs that are not FDA approved.

If you believe any of that you need to Google informed consent + lawsuit. Informed consent is a BIG deal. If you work in an accredited facility your accrediting body will eat you alive for not obtaining it, yes, even for new scripts. I have been a prescriber for 16 years and you most certainly DO have to advise patients of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. Unless, of course, your license and your livelihood mean nothing to you.

I guess I'll have to brush up. It's not been a practice I've observed at any of the hospitals I've rotated through. Maybe they sign a blanket statement before admission. I don't know. We certainly obtain consent before any procedures or surgeries, but not for writing scripts. It doesn't seem to be the standard of care where I am at (and it's not my license on the line) nor do we have to tell someone with asthma about ever single facet of the disease.

*Edit*: Just asked the wife and pulled her lawbook off the shelf:

Schloendorf v. Society of New York Hospital (1914): basically states that every adult human being has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and involved surgery. I quickly flipped through the chapter and couldn't get any real information about basic medical management. There was one vignette about anti-psychotics and the psychotic patient but that didn't seem relevant. I certainly didn't find any cases or decisions that demanded basical medical management fell under informed consent. I would think consent would be implied upon filling the script or agreeing to admission. I don't know. You are a lawyer and a practitioner, so if you have the relevant case law or what not, I'd be happy to look at it. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong and want to fix any discrepancies before I make a mistake.

I certainly didn't see anything in there where a Dr. had a legal duty to go over every single facet of a disease. In other words, if her Dr. didn't tell her that her son could die of asthma, I don't think she could sue him on that basis.

Generally for meds they do sign a blanket consent, but your documentation MUST show that you have discussed the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. AND it is your responsibility to teach the person about their illness and what constitutes a medical emergency related to the same. Even my MD, knowing that I am a nurse discussed these things with me. (4 hours off my medication pump, get myself to an ER.) He also told me that my disease is fatal after 6 months with no treatment.

I doubt your wife's old law book has every case in it. I have the JD AND I am a prescriber. There have been cases over lack of informed consent as well as the provider not educating the patient about his/her illness. It is a standard where I work that we put in every note we chart the medication teaching that we did AND that we told the patient when and how to access an emergency room. And of course you know the chart is considered your sworn testimony, so you better not lie in it.

The extent of what you teach is contingent upon the patient's ability to understand. Many times the teaching is given to a caregiver. Also, if a situation is emergent, consent may not be necessary. May not be.

I hope that as you develop as a provider you will learn to search out facts and think for yourself. I have SEEN many abominable practices both in the hospital and in clinics. Just because I have SEEN them does not mean that I infer that they are correct or that I should practice that way.

There are many good workshops out there for medical providers. It is not too early in your career to seek them out and avail yourself of them.

 

[geauxtohell]

If you believe any of that you need to Google informed consent + lawsuit. Informed consent is a BIG deal. If you work in an accredited facility your accrediting body will eat you alive for not obtaining it, yes, even for new scripts. I have been a prescriber for 16 years and you most certainly DO have to advise patients of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. Unless, of course, your license and your livelihood mean nothing to you.

I guess I'll have to brush up. It's not been a practice I've observed at any of the hospitals I've rotated through. Maybe they sign a blanket statement before admission. I don't know. We certainly obtain consent before any procedures or surgeries, but not for writing scripts. It doesn't seem to be the standard of care where I am at (and it's not my license on the line) nor do we have to tell someone with asthma about ever single facet of the disease.

*Edit*: Just asked the wife and pulled her lawbook off the shelf:

Schloendorf v. Society of New York Hospital (1914): basically states that every adult human being has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and involved surgery. I quickly flipped through the chapter and couldn't get any real information about basic medical management. There was one vignette about anti-psychotics and the psychotic patient but that didn't seem relevant. I certainly didn't find any cases or decisions that demanded basical medical management fell under informed consent. I would think consent would be implied upon filling the script or agreeing to admission. I don't know. You are a lawyer and a practitioner, so if you have the relevant case law or what not, I'd be happy to look at it. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong and want to fix any discrepancies before I make a mistake.

I certainly didn't see anything in there where a Dr. had a legal duty to go over every single facet of a disease. In other words, if her Dr. didn't tell her that her son could die of asthma, I don't think she could sue him on that basis.

Generally for meds they do sign a blanket consent, but your documentation MUST show that you have discussed the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. AND it is your responsibility to teach the person about their illness and what constitutes a medical emergency related to the same. Even my MD, knowing that I am a nurse discussed these things with me. (4 hours off my medication pump, get myself to an ER.) He also told me that my disease is fatal after 6 months with no treatment.

I doubt your wife's old law book has every case in it. I have the JD AND I am a prescriber. There have been cases over lack of informed consent as well as the provider not educating the patient about his/her illness. It is a standard where I work that we put in every note we chart the medication teaching that we did AND that we told the patient when and how to access an emergency room. And of course you know the chart is considered your sworn testimony, so you better not lie in it.

The extent of what you teach is contingent upon the patient's ability to understand. Many times the teaching is given to a caregiver. Also, if a situation is emergent, consent may not be necessary. May not be.

I hope that as you develop as a provider you will learn to search out facts and think for yourself. I have SEEN many abominable practices both in the hospital and in clinics. Just because I have SEEN them does not mean that I infer that they are correct or that I should practice that way.

There are many good workshops out there for medical providers. It is not too early in your career to seek them out and avail yourself of them.

LOL. My wife passed the bar last year. The book is from '08 I believe. We are in our 30s. C'mon!

I think the "reasonable" person standard applies. You can get sued for anything, it doesn't mean the case is winnable.

I am just stating fact, I can't find a statute that extends informed consent to cover every medication you prescribe and telling patient's about every facet of the disease. I fully agree that it is good care, I just don't know if it's a legal standard or a breech of duty or negligence. I only say that because I can't find any cases that support that notion. There are certainly cases and law about procedures, surgeries, experimental drugs.

I am fully aware that a medical chart is a legal document. I would never intentionally fudge a chart. I am particularly anal about that. If I don't ask an ROS question, I don't indicate positive or negative and I never revert to the 12 point ROS negative unless indicated above (as annoying as the ROS is). If I chart something wrong, it is due to human error and I try and correct it if possible. (once I charged DPP 2+/4 bilaterally and they guy's foot was in a cast). A stupid mistake. I noted the error in the next day's note. Anyways, if I got called to the floor for that, I would just have to admit that I made a mistake.

 

[Sunshine]

I guess I'll have to brush up. It's not been a practice I've observed at any of the hospitals I've rotated through. Maybe they sign a blanket statement before admission. I don't know. We certainly obtain consent before any procedures or surgeries, but not for writing scripts. It doesn't seem to be the standard of care where I am at (and it's not my license on the line) nor do we have to tell someone with asthma about ever single facet of the disease.

*Edit*: Just asked the wife and pulled her lawbook off the shelf:

Schloendorf v. Society of New York Hospital (1914): basically states that every adult human being has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and involved surgery. I quickly flipped through the chapter and couldn't get any real information about basic medical management. There was one vignette about anti-psychotics and the psychotic patient but that didn't seem relevant. I certainly didn't find any cases or decisions that demanded basical medical management fell under informed consent. I would think consent would be implied upon filling the script or agreeing to admission. I don't know. You are a lawyer and a practitioner, so if you have the relevant case law or what not, I'd be happy to look at it. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong and want to fix any discrepancies before I make a mistake.

I certainly didn't see anything in there where a Dr. had a legal duty to go over every single facet of a disease. In other words, if her Dr. didn't tell her that her son could die of asthma, I don't think she could sue him on that basis.

Generally for meds they do sign a blanket consent, but your documentation MUST show that you have discussed the risks, benefits, and alternatives of every medication you prescribe. AND it is your responsibility to teach the person about their illness and what constitutes a medical emergency related to the same. Even my MD, knowing that I am a nurse discussed these things with me. (4 hours off my medication pump, get myself to an ER.) He also told me that my disease is fatal after 6 months with no treatment.

I doubt your wife's old law book has every case in it. I have the JD AND I am a prescriber. There have been cases over lack of informed consent as well as the provider not educating the patient about his/her illness. It is a standard where I work that we put in every note we chart the medication teaching that we did AND that we told the patient when and how to access an emergency room. And of course you know the chart is considered your sworn testimony, so you better not lie in it.

The extent of what you teach is contingent upon the patient's ability to understand. Many times the teaching is given to a caregiver. Also, if a situation is emergent, consent may not be necessary. May not be.

I hope that as you develop as a provider you will learn to search out facts and think for yourself. I have SEEN many abominable practices both in the hospital and in clinics. Just because I have SEEN them does not mean that I infer that they are correct or that I should practice that way.

There are many good workshops out there for medical providers. It is not too early in your career to seek them out and avail yourself of them.

LOL. My wife passed the bar last year. The book is from '08 I believe. We are in our 30s. C'mon!

I think the "reasonable" person standard applies. You can get sued for anything, it doesn't mean the case is winnable.

I am just stating fact, I can't find a statute that extends informed consent to cover every medication you prescribe and telling patient's about every facet of the disease. I fully agree that it is good care, I just don't know if it's a legal standard or a breech of duty or negligence. I only say that because I can't find any cases that support that notion. There are certainly cases and law about procedures, surgeries, experimental drugs.

I am fully aware that a medical chart is a legal document. I would never intentionally fudge a chart. I am particularly anal about that. If I don't ask an ROS question, I don't indicate positive or negative and I never revert to the 12 point ROS negative unless indicated above (as annoying as the ROS is). If I chart something wrong, it is due to human error and I try and correct it if possible. (once I charged DPP 2+/4 bilaterally and they guy's foot was in a cast). A stupid mistake. I noted the error in the next day's note. Anyways, if I got called to the floor for that, I would just have to admit that I made a mistake.

Here is some help for you and your baby lawyer wife:

Medical Malpractice: Informed Consent - Free Legal Information - Nolo

Medical Malpractice: Informed Consent Informed consent is required before a medical procedure ortreatment.
Doctors must fully inform their patients about the risks involved in any proposed medical procedure or treatment. In both medical and legal terminology, this is called "informed consent." If a doctor does not get informed consent from a patient, and the patient is injured, the patient may have grounds to sue the doctor for medical malpractice. (To learn more about medical malpractice, read Nolo's article Medical Malpractice Basics.)

Here are the details of what constitutes informed consent, when it is required, and what exceptions can be made.

What is Informed Consent?Most medical procedures or treatments involve some risk. It is the doctor's responsibility to give the patient information about a particular treatment or procedure so the patient can decide whether to undergo the treatment, procedure, or test. This process of providing essential information to the patient and getting the patient's agreement to a certain medical procedure or treatment is called informed consent.

Doctors typically require patients to sign a consent form detailing the risks of any given treatment or procedure. But signing a form alone does not necessarily prove that the patient gave informed consent. The doctor must actually discuss the procedure and risks with the patient. And the patient must understand, to the extent possible, the risks he or she faces.

Whether or not a patient gave his or her informed consent to a treatment is crucial in the law of medical malpractice. If a doctor does not get a patient's informed consent, and the patient would not have opted for the treatment if he or she knew about the risks, the patient may be able to sue the doctor for medical malpractice.

What Risks Must be Disclosed?A doctor doesn't have to tell a patient about every possible thing that might happen as a result of a procedure or treatment, but only those risks that are important. But what is considered important? For the most part, states use one of two standards to determine this.

Would Other Doctors Have Disclosed the Risk?In states that use this first standard, an injured patient who is suing a doctor must hire a medical expert to testify that other competent doctors would have informed the patient of this risk. The doctor being sued will also hire an expert to testify that a competent doctor would not necessarily have disclosed the risk to the patient.

In the end, the crux of the argument is usually over whether the risk was statistically likely enough to make disclosure worthwhile. Simply because a particular bad result is a remote possibility does not mean it must be disclosed -- even if that bad result comes to pass.

Would a Normal Patient Have Made a Different Decision If Informed of the Risk?In states using this second standard, courts ask whether a normal patient, with the same medical history and conditions as the plaintiff, would have changed his or her mind about the treatment if the risk was disclosed. Unlike states following the first standard, a doctor must also inform a patient of realistic alternative treatments, even if the doctor only recommends one treatment.

Medical expert testimony is not always required in states following this rule. But if the medical facts are complicated, an injured plaintiff might want to use an expert anyway.

When Informed Consent Is Not RequiredThere are several exceptions to the informed consent rule:

Emergencies. In an emergency, there is no time to describe the risks involved and a physician must act quickly to save a life. A patient cannot sue for lack of informed consent in this situation, even if he or she would not have allowed the treatment. (To learn more about medical malpractice issues arising in emergency rooms, read Nolo's article Medical Malpractice During Emergencies.)

Emotionally fragile patients. If a doctor knows that the patient is so distressed that he or she will refuse needed treatment, the doctor may not be required to get the patient's informed consent. For example, if a brain tumor is life threatening, but removal entails frightening risks like paralysis, it may be appropriate for the doctor to be vague in her description of the risks.

Also, if disclosing too much detail about a necessary procedure may make an already frail patient sick with anxiety, the doctor may be able to withhold some information. A doctor may decide how much to disclose based on the particularities of each patient, but he or she must be able to demonstrate a clear reason why the risks were not disclosed.

When I was in law school, we didn't have any case that I recall about informed consent per se. In fact, law school generally does not include cases other than appellate cases. You have to learn to find the others on your own. Good luck to your wife on this.

There are MANY informed consent cases out there.

LAW.com - Quest - "informed consent" Results


If you go to this site, you will find page after page of lawsuits involving informed consent.

BTW: The spelling is consent, not concent.

 

[Xchel]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

 

[Sunshine]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

Sorry, but the MD cannot bump his responsibility off to the pharmacist. They are both responsible to be sure you know what you need to know. And a 'little flyer' to a person who cannot read, understand the language, or who is blind would be useless.

I know of a Spanish woman who got a bottle of steroids with the instructions: "Take one tablet once a day." She read the 'once' as the spanish word for 'eleven'.....

 

[Xchel]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

Sorry, but the MD cannot bump his responsibility off to the pharmacist. They are both responsible to be sure you know what you need to know. And a 'little flyer' to a person who cannot read, understand the language, or who is blind would be useless.

I know of a Spanish woman who got a bottle of steroids with the instructions: "Take one tablet once a day." She read the 'once' as the spanish word for 'eleven'.....

an MD is not a specialist in pharmaceuticals he is a specialist in diagnostics and treatment..the pharmacist has to have a degree in pharmacology for a reason..not a single case that you listed had anything to do with any lawsuit for the doctor not telling a patient about side effects of medicine.

 

[Sunshine]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

Sorry, but the MD cannot bump his responsibility off to the pharmacist. They are both responsible to be sure you know what you need to know. And a 'little flyer' to a person who cannot read, understand the language, or who is blind would be useless.

I know of a Spanish woman who got a bottle of steroids with the instructions: "Take one tablet once a day." She read the 'once' as the spanish word for 'eleven'.....

an MD is not a specialist in pharmaceuticals he is a specialist in diagnostics and treatment..the pharmacist has to have a degree in pharmacology for a reason..not a single case that you listed had anything to do with any lawsuit for the doctor not telling a patient about side effects of medicine.

So you read all 50+ pages of those cases? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I beg your pardon. And MD is most definitely a specialist in the pharmaceuticals he prescribes. Otherwise the state would not license him to prescribe. Every person who practices under a license is responsible for the consequences of what they do under that license.

Sweetie. Stick with something you know. This isn't it.

 

[Xchel]

Sorry, but the MD cannot bump his responsibility off to the pharmacist. They are both responsible to be sure you know what you need to know. And a 'little flyer' to a person who cannot read, understand the language, or who is blind would be useless.

I know of a Spanish woman who got a bottle of steroids with the instructions: "Take one tablet once a day." She read the 'once' as the spanish word for 'eleven'.....

an MD is not a specialist in pharmaceuticals he is a specialist in diagnostics and treatment..the pharmacist has to have a degree in pharmacology for a reason..not a single case that you listed had anything to do with any lawsuit for the doctor not telling a patient about side effects of medicine.

So you read all 50+ pages of those cases? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I beg your pardon. And MD is most definitely a specialist in the pharmaceuticals he prescribes. Otherwise the state would not license him to prescribe. Every person who practices under a license is responsible for the consequences of what they do under that license.

Sweetie. Stick with something you know. This isn't it.

he can give meds in script form, when you buy the medicine you are consenting to take it, you get the side effect information on the flyer, so you have been informed period. Second of all, something I know is this..evidently you don't or you would have pointed the specific case and not fifty pages of pharmaceutical lawsuits against PHARMACIES and drug manufacturers not doctors. It is up to you to read the flyer, not the doctor's responsibility to read it to you.

 

[Sunshine]

an MD is not a specialist in pharmaceuticals he is a specialist in diagnostics and treatment..the pharmacist has to have a degree in pharmacology for a reason..not a single case that you listed had anything to do with any lawsuit for the doctor not telling a patient about side effects of medicine.

So you read all 50+ pages of those cases? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I beg your pardon. And MD is most definitely a specialist in the pharmaceuticals he prescribes. Otherwise the state would not license him to prescribe. Every person who practices under a license is responsible for the consequences of what they do under that license.

Sweetie. Stick with something you know. This isn't it.

he can give meds in script form, when you buy the medicine you are consenting to take it, you get the side effect information on the flyer, so you have been informed period. Second of all, something I know is this..evidently you don't or you would have pointed the specific case and not fifty pages of pharmaceutical lawsuits against PHARMACIES and drug manufacturers not doctors. It is up to you to read the flyer, not the doctor's responsibility to read it to you.

There are plenty of cases against pharmacists.

LAW.com - Quest - "pharmacist malpractice" Results

And pharmacists can be equally as sleazy as doctors in their practice. There is one pharmacy that had a lined sheet and each person picking up a script was told to 'sign for your medicine.' At the top of the page was a little blurb no one bothered to read stating that the signature indicated the pharmacist had done the necessary patient educations.

Patient education and in formed consent is the responsibility of everyone who holds a license to practice in the medical field. Every licenses person practices under his/her OWN license and cannot shut the burden off to the next person down the line.

You little ninny, you are talking to someone who has 2 nursing degrees and a law degree and who has worked in health care for 22 years. You apparently are not even from/in this country. You don't know jack shit about how this system works.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here is some help for you and your baby lawyer wife:

I asked my wife about it because she clerked in Med Mal for a couple of years and then practiced in it for about a year before moving on. That doesn't make her an expert, of course, but she is familiar with med mal so I would deem her opinion as relevant as anyone else on the board on this matter. Do you currently practice law?

From your link, this is what I was referring too (obviously procedures are covered):

What Risks Must be Disclosed?A doctor doesn't have to tell a patient about every possible thing that might happen as a result of a procedure or treatment, but only those risks that are important. But what is considered important? For the most part, states use one of two standards to determine this.

Would Other Doctors Have Disclosed the Risk?In states that use this first standard, an injured patient who is suing a doctor must hire a medical expert to testify that other competent doctors would have informed the patient of this risk. The doctor being sued will also hire an expert to testify that a competent doctor would not necessarily have disclosed the risk to the patient.

In the end, the crux of the argument is usually over whether the risk was statistically likely enough to make disclosure worthwhile. Simply because a particular bad result is a remote possibility does not mean it must be disclosed -- even if that bad result comes to pass.

Would a Normal Patient Have Made a Different Decision If Informed of the Risk?In states using this second standard, courts ask whether a normal patient, with the same medical history and conditions as the plaintiff, would have changed his or her mind about the treatment if the risk was disclosed. Unlike states following the first standard, a doctor must also inform a patient of realistic alternative treatments, even if the doctor only recommends one treatment.

It sounds very subjective. I just saw the worst case of angioedema. Like, so bad it would make a textbook. Did the doctor disclose the risk of angioedema to the patient prior to giving out the ACEI? I am not sure. The patient didn't seem to have made the connection until we made it for them. We don't tell someone about angioedema every time we start an ACEI.

Since this is a tort, there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule about disclosing information or informed consent when it comes to medical management.

This doesn't even touch a physicians responsibility about what to tell a patient about their condition. It's good medicine to teach patients. To what degree is it a legal obligation?

When I was in law school, we didn't have any case that I recall about informed consent per se. In fact, law school generally does not include cases other than appellate cases. You have to learn to find the others on your own. Good luck to your wife on this.

She said they didn't even touch informed consent in her torts class. The professor focused on product liability and other things that were more "high yield".

There are MANY informed consent cases out there.

LAW.com - Quest - "informed consent" Results

If you go to this site, you will find page after page of lawsuits involving informed consent.

It requires a subscription to view the documents. I guess I could opt for the 90 day free trial, but I suspect there are strings attached. I am certainly not paying $395 for a regular subscription.

You could always do your own legal research, you know.

BTW: The spelling is consent, not concent.

Did I misspell it somewhere? I don't see that in my posts. But thanks for the tip. I know how to spell consent.

 

[Sunshine]

Here is some help for you and your baby lawyer wife:

I asked my wife about it because she clerked in Med Mal for a couple of years and then practiced in it for about a year before moving on. That doesn't make her an expert, of course, but she is familiar with med mal so I would deem her opinion as relevant as anyone else on the board on this matter. Do you currently practice law?

From your link, this is what I was referring too (obviously procedures are covered):

What Risks Must be Disclosed?A doctor doesn't have to tell a patient about every possible thing that might happen as a result of a procedure or treatment, but only those risks that are important. But what is considered important? For the most part, states use one of two standards to determine this.

Would Other Doctors Have Disclosed the Risk?In states that use this first standard, an injured patient who is suing a doctor must hire a medical expert to testify that other competent doctors would have informed the patient of this risk. The doctor being sued will also hire an expert to testify that a competent doctor would not necessarily have disclosed the risk to the patient.

In the end, the crux of the argument is usually over whether the risk was statistically likely enough to make disclosure worthwhile. Simply because a particular bad result is a remote possibility does not mean it must be disclosed -- even if that bad result comes to pass.

Would a Normal Patient Have Made a Different Decision If Informed of the Risk?In states using this second standard, courts ask whether a normal patient, with the same medical history and conditions as the plaintiff, would have changed his or her mind about the treatment if the risk was disclosed. Unlike states following the first standard, a doctor must also inform a patient of realistic alternative treatments, even if the doctor only recommends one treatment.

It sounds very subjective. I just saw the worst case of angioedema. Like, so bad it would make a textbook. Did the doctor disclose the risk of angioedema to the patient prior to giving out the ACEI? I am not sure. The patient didn't seem to have made the connection until we made it for them. We don't tell someone about angioedema every time we start an ACEI.

Since this is a tort, there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule about disclosing information or informed consent when it comes to medical management.

This doesn't even touch a physicians responsibility about what to tell a patient about their condition. It's good medicine to teach patients. To what degree is it a legal obligation?



She said they didn't even touch informed consent in her torts class. The professor focused on product liability and other things that were more "high yield".

There are MANY informed consent cases out there.

LAW.com - Quest - "informed consent" Results

If you go to this site, you will find page after page of lawsuits involving informed consent.

It requires a subscription to view the documents. I guess I could opt for the 90 day free trial, but I suspect there are strings attached. I am certainly not paying $395 for a regular subscription.

You could always do your own legal research, you know.

BTW: The spelling is consent, not concent.

Did I misspell it somewhere? I don't see that in my posts. But thanks for the tip. I know how to spell consent.

Well, the cases are out there if you want them. Get your practicing wife to look them up on WestLaw. There are many of them. I haven't decided if you are displaying arrogance or just lack of knowledge. I doubt a law clerk has a great handle on the entire spectrum of medical malpractice of which informed consent is a big part. Right now you are learning medicine. But you will not succeed unless you learn to cover your ass. And right now you don't know how, nor apparently do your mentors. The day will come when you work somewhere that is accredited and you will find that your accrediting body will DEMAND that your facility DEMAND its providers to give informed consent. Any idea where those accrediting bodies like the JCAHO get their standards? Think about it!~ Every new standard follows on the heels of some case or other.

I have stated repeatedly that I do not practice law. But I do have my own seminar company and I teach these concepts to others. Teaching law does not require a license. I did not go to law school to practice, and most people who get the JD do not practice. Many people get the JD to become better and more knowledgeable in their current professions.

And yes you misspelled consent a couple of times.