Consent Required??

[tranquility]

Those who are "clueless" are those who have continued to provide NO legal reference for their theory. None. Not one. Not even a little tiny bit that may support their position. I await the munificence, or call them out for no more than rubbish.

I've given substantive legal reference for the law on this matter. I've yet to see a cite or persuade authority on the counter side. Surely, with such surety you can provide SOMETHING. Anything at all. It's out there. Give an effort or argument or be Willyjo.

 

[ecmst12]

Your reference did not remotely convince me that consent was required in this situation. I do not believe that the cath was material to be disclosed nor would a REASONABLE person use that knowledge as a basis of consenting to the procedure or not. Not that your reference wasn't accurate.

 

[ivanl3]

Your reference did not remotely convince me that consent was required in this situation. I do not believe that the cath was material to be disclosed nor would a REASONABLE person use that knowledge as a basis of consenting to the procedure or not. Not that your reference wasn't accurate.

Although the local lawyer who has all the detail on this matter has concluded otherwise -- albeit not cost justified to pursue the matter.


Consider the following:

1. The patient was "on the fence" about having this procedure without knowledge of the cath.
2. The cardiac risks of an ablation are quite serious. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cardiac-ablation/MY00706/DSECTION=risks
3. This first ablation did not completely resolve his arrhythmias.
4. The Dr only gave a 70% chance of success for this ablation (meaning resolving the arrythmia without any of the serious risks from manifesting)
5. The patient was having intermittent success managing A-Fib w/ meds.
6. The costs of this procedure, given his insurance situation, are significant
7. The patient had deep seeded fear (apparently well founded), about the insertion of foreign devices into his penis and bladder (call him crazy).
8. The patient's wife was not supportive of the ablation being performed. I cannot tell you why, but I know this mattered to him
9. The patient could not afford to miss extended work time.
10. The patient's grandparent has been in a-fib for 25 years without treatment (other than meds) and continues to live a productive life. This influenced him.

The above items are facts. #11 is my opinion.

11. Had the patient known a urinary cath was going to be used, not only would #7 have discouraged him in and of itself, he also would have anticipated his psychological reaction to the use of a urinary cath (without complications). He probably could not even imagine the psychological reaction if it were used and something serious were to go wrong (as it did).

So given this situation, is it "reasonable" that knowledge of the use of a urinary cath would persuade a reasonable person from deciding not to have the ablation? Hell yes, IMO. He was 50/50 without this knowledge.

FYI -- still no improvement in his medical condition, nor any updates on when he might be released from the hospital.

 

[tranquility]

I've not tried to convince anyone about the result of this. All I've tried to do is give the law on the matter accurately. Many disagreed with what I wrote and gave some rubbish about how things are done. I gave the reasoning that would have to be used to make the way it is done the legal way to do things. Instead of learning about the law, there continued to be rubbish spewed, straw men erected, and dismissal of an OP's legitimate concerns. An OP who presented things reasonably all the way through enough so that any fair-minded reader should be able to understand the issues. Pity so few were here in this thread.

 

[Zigner]

Exactly what "legitimate concerns" does the OP have in this matter? Oh yeah, none. This is not OP's business, legally speaking.

 

[ivanl3]

Why must one be legally vested in an issue to have a discussion about it?

If one must have a legal interest in the matter to have a discussion about an issue, where do all you get off engaging in the discussion as well?

Why is the board so hostile? Rhetorical question.

Would you agree that the wife of the patient has a legitimate legal interest in this matter?

Tranquility, thanks so much for all the information you have provided. And even greater thanks for taking a compassionate tone on the issues and for staying on topic. Its amazing how badly people try to suck you down rabbit trails.

 

[Zigner]

Why must one be legally vested in an issue to have a discussion about it?

If one must have a legal interest in the matter to have a discussion about an issue, where do all you get off engaging in the discussion as well?

Why is the board so hostile? Rhetorical question.

Would you agree that the wife of the patient has a legitimate legal interest in this matter?

Tranquility, thanks so much for all the information you have provided. And even greater thanks for taking a compassionate tone on the issues and for staying on topic. Its amazing how badly people try to suck you down rabbit trails.

Is this the first time you've identified your role in this matter? Yes, I'd agree that the wife would be a legitimate person to be making inquiries. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yes, one should have a legal interest in the matter before wasting the time of the volunteers on this board...but, as I said above, I believe yours is a valid interest.

 

[Zigner]

Tranq has presented one viewpoint. Others have presented equally valid viewpoints. I am sure your thanks extend to all who have contributed

 

[ivanl3]

Here we go again with my words being twisted. I never said I was his wife. I asked if the wife had a legitimate legal interest in this matter.

Not that any of you need to know this, but I am a friend of the pateint and the wife. And the wife asked my opinion on this matter. She also asked that I do some research on the issue. This place is one of several I went to solicit advice and opinions -- the most prominent one being the local lawyer who stated that in her opinion IC was violated here but still would be unwilling to file suit even if they wanted to -- at least at this time.

The wife was very appreciative in the information I provided her. This has allowed her to focus more on supporting her ailing husband who has a long and painful recovery facing -- all which could have been avoided if proper IC was obtained.

And yes, my thanks is to all who have contributed (constructively) -- i.e. - Tranquility.

 

[Zigner]

...my thanks is to all who have contributed.

There I fixed it for you.

And you are a prevaricator.

 

[ivanl3]

Are my pants on fire too?

 

[ecmst12]

Every possible issue in your situation has been discussed from all possible angles. The horse is dead, please stop beating it.

 

[Zigner]

Are my pants on fire too?

Probably - but there's no way we could know since you are not truthful.

 

[ecmst12]

You too Zig!

 

[Zigner]

You too Zig!

Ok