Death Panels? What Death Panels?

[chanel]

In a case that could have nationwide implications, Trinitas Regional Medical Center here wants an appeals court to decide whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.

The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.

The state Supreme Court ruled in the mid-1970s that patients and their families have the right to decide when and whether to remove life support regardless of what a hospital says.

Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left.""This may be a case of first impression in New Jersey (the first of its kind), but it is going to be a recurring problem as our generation ages," Riveles said.

N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients | - NJ.com

Silly Sarah...

 

[JBeukema]

link

 

[Bfgrn]

Chanel, how close are you allowed to get to our children in the classroom? I hope it is not in the same county, country or planet.

Trinitas Regional Medical Center is a hospital. It is a private sector entity. It is NOT a government entity. This is NOT government death panels, this is HOSPITAL death panels! Do you also believe dogs meow and cats bark?

Gary S. Horan CEO of Trinitas Regional Medical Center is also a member of the Board of Directors of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber of Commerce lobbied Congress vehemently to protect corporations and hospitals from any restraints or culpability in our failed and broken health care system.

THIS OP is LAME Zone posting

 

[chanel]

Ouch. That hurt. Not.

This is a death panel. I don't care if it's the hospital, the government, or the parish priest making this decision. It should be the decision of the patient and the family. The NJ Supreme Court could take that decision making away. And when the government is picking up the tab, more hospitals may be pressured into overruling the patient's wishes.

This is an important topic. Maybe you need to go back to school to learn some manners. Glad I'm not teaching your kids.

To serious posters only: How do you think the court will rule?

 

[JBeukema]

It should be the decision of the patient and the family.

Oh? So three, five, or seventeen men should die because the medicine they need was wasted on your hopeless case? What about 100? 1000? How many lives is one worth just because you cry about it?


Doctors have a moral and legal obligation to help as many as they can. There comes a time when you have to let a hopeless case go and move on. You must prioritize. That's why they have triage.

 

[chanel]

So DNR's aren't worth the paper they are printed on? Or maybe just the "DRs"? I don't believe people should be watered like plants on life support forever. I certainly wouldn't want to be.

However, this is a very slippery slope...

 

[JBeukema]

What're you babbling about? ERs makes decisions every day about who needs help, who can wait, and who can't be saved.

Not to mention military medics, Doctors Without Borders, and others who must determine where to invest precious few resources when they're confronted with large numbers of often seriously wounded.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ouch. That hurt. Not.

This is a death panel. I don't care if it's the hospital, the government, or the parish priest making this decision. It should be the decision of the patient and the family. The NJ Supreme Court could take that decision making away. And when the government is picking up the tab, more hospitals may be pressured into overruling the patient's wishes.

This is an important topic. Maybe you need to go back to school to learn some manners. Glad I'm not teaching your kids.

To serious posters only: How do you think the court will rule?

If I were teaching your kids, they would learn critical thinking, something your little pea is totally devoid of. Here's some REAL education taught critical thinking for you...

First: WITHOUT the legal recourse government laws deem a RIGHT, there would be NO WAY to stop the hospital, any other corporation or private entity from implementing any death panel policy they choose.

Second: if you right wing pea brains have your way with tort reform, patients will have little or no legal recourse if the hospital just happens to 'accidentally' pull the plug on grandma

 

[chanel]

Oh so that's why it's being heard by the Supreme Court? Because it's perfectly legal and happens every day? Perhaps you could let them know. I'm sure they have better things to do than to "babble" about the obvious.

 

[chanel]

Ouch. That hurt. Not.

This is a death panel. I don't care if it's the hospital, the government, or the parish priest making this decision. It should be the decision of the patient and the family. The NJ Supreme Court could take that decision making away. And when the government is picking up the tab, more hospitals may be pressured into overruling the patient's wishes.

This is an important topic. Maybe you need to go back to school to learn some manners. Glad I'm not teaching your kids.

To serious posters only: How do you think the court will rule?

If I were teaching your kids, they would learn critical thinking, something your little pea is totally devoid of. Here's some REAL education taught critical thinking for you...

First: WITHOUT the legal recourse government laws deem a RIGHT, there would be NO WAY to stop the hospital, any other corporation or private entity from implementing any death panel policy they choose.

Second: if you right wing pea brains have your way with tort reform, patients will have little or no legal recourse if the hospital just happens to 'accidentally' pull the plug on grandma

" Here's some REAL education taught critical thinking for you..." Huh? My little pea brain does not compute nonsensical sentences.

This little pea brain understands that "tort reform" does not mean "little or no recourse" for wrongful death. Look it up. You might learn something.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ouch. That hurt. Not.

This is a death panel. I don't care if it's the hospital, the government, or the parish priest making this decision. It should be the decision of the patient and the family. The NJ Supreme Court could take that decision making away. And when the government is picking up the tab, more hospitals may be pressured into overruling the patient's wishes.

This is an important topic. Maybe you need to go back to school to learn some manners. Glad I'm not teaching your kids.

To serious posters only: How do you think the court will rule?

If I were teaching your kids, they would learn critical thinking, something your little pea is totally devoid of. Here's some REAL education taught critical thinking for you...

First: WITHOUT the legal recourse government laws deem a RIGHT, there would be NO WAY to stop the hospital, any other corporation or private entity from implementing any death panel policy they choose.

Second: if you right wing pea brains have your way with tort reform, patients will have little or no legal recourse if the hospital just happens to 'accidentally' pull the plug on grandma

" Here's some REAL education taught critical thinking for you..." Huh? My little pea brain does not compute nonsensical sentences.

This little pea brain understands that "tort reform" does not mean "little or no recourse" for wrongful death. Look it up. You might learn something.

Tort Reform Reduces Reasonable Wrongful Death Award

Mark Bello - Attorney

March 10, 2010

Here is yet another case where a plaintiff was denied full adjudication by a jury of his/her peers because of a legislative capped recovery. The family of Hector Alvarez was awarded $1.25 million in a medical malpractice case against Dr. William J. Dunwood, III a radiologist at Inova HealthPlex in Alexandria, VA.

On July 6, 2006, Mr. Alvarez experienced chest pains and trouble swallowing after taking a bite of steak. He went to Inova HealthPlex where he was put through several tests before being diagnosed with a hiatal hernia. He was sent home with medication, but soon returned to the hospital when the pain did not subside. The next day a surgeon discovered that Mr. Alvarez actually had a perforated esophagus from the piece of steak becoming lodged in his throat. He was rushed into surgery to repair the tear, but not before he suffered cardiac arrest. There was difficulty resuscitating Alvarez and he suffered irreparable brain damage. The surgery was not able to be performed. Mr. Alvarez subsequently died on July 17, 2006. Had Mr. Alvarez not been misdiagnosed, appropriate treatment would not have been delayed and he would be with his family today.

The result of this medical malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit demonstrates the tragedy of tort reform. The jury awarded the family $3 million, but due to Virginia caps on medical malpractice awards, the verdict was reduced to $1.2 million. While the award may sound significant, a man is forever lost to his family and a jury decided the value of his life to his family. Why does a selfish legislature get to play God here?

Does the general public realize the impact of caps on everyday people. Tort reform provides a corporate bailout to rich and powerful insurance companies and other industries, and punishes everyone else. Those who must deal with the loss of a loved one for the rest of their lives suffer the most. The taxpayers pick up the balance of a burden that should fall on the insurance company that accepted the risk. It is unconstitutional, unjust, and just plain wrong.

Whole article...Tort Reform Reduces Reasonable Wrongful Death Award | InjuryBoard

Anything ELSE, PEA brain???

 

[chanel]

Sorry. $1.2 million seems fair to me. Shall we steer this conversation into malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous awards that will counter Mr. Bello - ATTORNEY's single example? Or shall we stick to the topic?

How do you think the court will rule?

And if they do rule in favor of the hospital, how do you think that will affect "pulling the plug on grannie"? Zero liability?

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry. $1.2 million seems fair to me. Shall we steer this conversation into malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous awards that will counter Mr. Bello - ATTORNEY's single example? Or shall we stick to the topic?

How do you think the court will rule?

And if they do rule in favor of the hospital, how do you think that will affect "pulling the plug on grannie"? Zero liability?

A jury of the Alvarez family's peers ruled differently, but YOU know better without hearing the case or being there, YOU can tell from a distance. It wouldn't surprise me if the State had limited the award to $250,000, you would STILL feel it was fair. That's because it was not YOU!!!

YES, let's steer this conversation into malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous awards. You have given me a much better reason you should never be allowed anywhere near children. You moved from a right wing pea brain to a right wing statist scum bag.

Tort reform IS STATISM. It is government overreach, intrusion and a violation of OUR civil liberties. It is one branch of government undermining another. It is dictating to a jury of OUR peers what is fair. It undermines and removes PERSONAL responsibility from the perpetrator TO the victim. It is UN American and it is the work of corporate lawyers and lobbyists that have NO regard for YOU, ME or our families.

The so-called "Tort Reform Movement" started as an internal project of the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company around 1992 and turned into a large-scale, corporate-funded effort led primarily by Philip Morris to alter the American judicial system in favor of big business. A privileged and confidential PM document titled Tort Reform Project Budget from 1995-96 shows how well-funded and ambitious PM's "Tort Reform" project was; it lists all the consultants, organizations, individuals and law firms the industry funded to promote alteration of the legal system in 1995-96.

In 2002, the consumer advocacy organization Center for Justice & Democracy investigated the roots of the U.S. "tort reform" movement and found that the "movement" was actually a massive national PR effort initiated by the tobacco industry to reduce or eliminate exposure to liability law suits. The report was co-released by CJ&D and Public Citizen. The tobacco industry enlisted the participation of other industries like chemical manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, automobile manufacturers, insurance companies and others to alter the U.S. system of laws ("tort") that give sick and injured consumers access the court system. The movement has been propelled ahead by massive tobacco industry funding; the same PM budget document reveals that the tobacco industry alone budgeted $21.8 million for the corporate tort reform effort in the single year of 1995.
wiki

Tort Reform Myth Debunked - Damages Caps do not Lower Malpractice Insurance Premiums

Bret Hanna
Attorney

November 12, 2009 4:49 PM

We've all heard the claims. Jackpot payouts in medical malpractice cases have caused malpractice insurance premiums to go so high that doctors are leaving certain specialties or leaving the profession altogether. To combat this, tort-reformers everywhere call for caps on non-economic damages as a magic bullet for fixing this "problem." Utah is no different.

Here is a list of "reforms" that have passed in Utah:

1. Shortened Statute of Limitations §78B-3-404
2. Statute of Repose (claims expire even if patient unaware of injury such as undiagnosed cancer) §78B-3-404
3. Abrogation of Collateral Source Rule (negligent care provider gets the benefit of insurance that the patient paid for or that taxpayers provide) §78B-3-405
4. Cap on Noneconomic Damages §78B-3-410
5. Periodic Payment of Future Damages Delaying by Years or Decades the Patient’s Receipt of an Award §78B-3-414
6. Arbitration Agreements §78B-3-421
7. Restriction on Informed Consent Claims §78B-3-406
8. Restriction on Warranty, Guaranty and Contract Claims §78B-3-408
9. Limits on Use of Admissions of Fault §78B-3-422
10. Governmental Immunity Act Time Limits for Claims against the University, residents and other trainees
11. Governmental Immunity Act total damages limits in certain circumstances §63G-7-604
12. Immunity for Emergency Medical Assistance (including paid services) provided by governmental employees §63G-7-302(5)(s)
13. Increased Burden of Proof for Emergency Room Care §58-13-2.5 et seq.
14. Notice of Intent Required Before Lawsuit §78B-3-412
15. Prelitigation Screening Mandatory Before Lawsuit §78B-3-416
16. Federal Tort Claims Act limits on Claims Against the VA Hospital
17. Absolute Immunity for 911 Calls §69-2-6
18. Prohibition on Access to and Use of Peer Review, Incident and Credentialing Materials §26-25-1
19. Limit on Attorney Fees §78B-3-411
20. Limitation on Therapist’s Duty to Warn §78B-3-604
21. Limitation on Damages for Loss of Consortium §30-2-11(7)
22. Good Samaritan Act §78-4-501
23. Extension of Good Samaritan Act and Health Care Providers Immunity from Liability Act to nurse practitioners §58-31b-701
24. Immunity for care provider who renders care at scene of emergency without duty to respond §58-13-2
25. Immunity (except for gross negligence or willful misconduct) for uncompensated care §58-13-3
26. Immunity for certain care providers during emergency declarations §26-49-501
27. Retired health care provider volunteers are immune from suit if care is uncompensated §58-81-104(5)
28. Separate prior trial on any statute of limitations issue §78B-2-114

Most of these "reforms" have been in place for years, if not decades, so there can be no argument that not enough time has passed to evaluate their effectiveness. This is particularly true when looking at the effectiveness of the caps on non-economic damages which injured patients have suffered with for a long, long time. Given that, let's look at 5 years worth of historical data taken from UMIA's 2008 Annual Statement:

* In 2008, gross premiums written were $70,607,300, up $16 million from 2004.
* In 2008, the total assets of UMIA were $230,718,580, up $64 million from 2004.
* In 2008, the total losses paid were $26,601,949, up $13 million from 2004, but only $2.5 million from 2006.

These numbers demonstrate that UMIA took in almost 3 times more just in premiums in 2008 than they paid out in claims and a similar ratio applies for each year. Moreover, these numbers underscore that damages caps do not lower premiums. Just because tort reformers repeatedly claim a connection between damages caps and lower premiums does not make it so.

Whole article...Tort Reform Myth Debunked - Damages Caps do not Lower Malpractice Insurance Premiums | InjuryBoard Salt Lake City

 

[rikules]

In a case that could have nationwide implications, Trinitas Regional Medical Center here wants an appeals court to decide whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.

The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.

The state Supreme Court ruled in the mid-1970s that patients and their families have the right to decide when and whether to remove life support regardless of what a hospital says.

Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left.""This may be a case of first impression in New Jersey (the first of its kind), but it is going to be a recurring problem as our generation ages," Riveles said.

N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients | - NJ.com

Silly Sarah...

CONSERVATIVE death panels.

NO medical treatment for the homeless, the low income, the uninsured