Re: Tyrannosaurus Med

[Guest guest]

How ridiculous!! Patients have a right to refuse treatment....doctors usually have a patient sign some kind of waiver in these cases....which is a legal form to cover the doc's ass if something should happen to the patient after refusing recommended procedures/treatment. and the patient lost his lawsuit??? That jury sure was sitting on their brains!! A simple CAT scan would have revealed more than what the doc's fingers could have and less invasive too!!Maracuja <howdurdago@...> wrote: Written with good humour but what an indictment!NaturalNews.com printable articleOriginally published May 26 2008Medical Tyranny: Patient Refuses Rectal Exam, Doctor Won't Butt Outby Joanne Waldron (see all articles by this author)(NaturalNews) Many people are under the impression that patients in the U.S. have the right to decline treatment if they are mentally competent and aware of the consequences of such a refusal. However, that doesn't seem to be the case if you visit certain hospitals. A construction worker who was hit in the head while on the job was taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center where he received eight stitches above his left eyebrow. When a doctor informed him that he needed to have a rectal exam in order to ascertain whether or not he sustained a spinal injury, the patient flatly refused the treatment.What

happened next is scary. While hospital personnel tried to hold the patient down in order to administer the exam anyway, very much against the patient's wishes, the patient accidentally hit a doctor while trying to break loose. Unfortunately, the hospital staff did not wish to take "no" for an answer, and the patient was drugged and later awoke with a tube in his throat and lubricant in his rectum, handcuffed to a bed. It seems doctors have the authority to decide to ignore the wishes of a patient if they feel the patient is incapable of making an informed decision.While it might be reasonable to give doctors some latitude in these matters, the story doesn't seem to make sense. If the patient was truly unable to make an informed decision about his medical care, why were misdemeanor assault charges filed against him for hitting the doctor? Surely a patient who was incapable of rational thought should not be held accountable if he were truly not thinking clearly and

only acting out due to an injury? Curiously, they all thought he was thinking clearly enough to have him arrested for his actions but not clearly enough to have the right to informed consent concerning his care.Just how necessary is a rectal exam when someone sustains a head injury, anyway? Clearly, not everyone who sustains a head injury and goes to an emergency room receives a rectal exam, and some medical professionals say that there are less invasive procedures that can be used to determine the neurological status of a patient. The patient in this case was quite responsive. He knew what exam the doctors wanted to do, and he knew why. His lawyer insists that things should've come to a halt the moment he said "no."What is most disturbing to health freedom advocates is that the patient did not prevail in his lawsuit against the hospital. Hopefully, his lawyers will file an appeal. If any neurological testing needs to be done, perhaps it would best be done

on the jury members who apparently have butts where their brains should be.References:(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gn7nIqTvF7zSx6NAjqcHp5xD5AUAD906RT180)

[Guest guest]

Good Grief.. That is absolutely ridiculous!!!!!

Yah,..why the hell would they demand a rectal exam..?? Good for him

for going after that hospital for that malpractice stunt... I am no

legal expert..but that sounds like malpractice and patient assault..

Quite disturbing..

>

> Written with good humour but what an indictment!

>

> NaturalNews.com printable article

> Originally published May 26 2008

> Medical Tyranny: Patient Refuses Rectal Exam, Doctor Won't Butt Out

> by Joanne Waldron (see all articles by this author)

>

>

> (NaturalNews) Many people are under the impression that patients in

the U.S. have the right to decline treatment if they are mentally

competent and aware of the consequences of such a refusal. However,

that doesn't seem to be the case if you visit certain hospitals. A

construction worker who was hit in the head while on the job was

taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center

where he received eight stitches above his left eyebrow. When a

doctor informed him that he needed to have a rectal exam in order to

ascertain whether or not he sustained a spinal injury, the patient

flatly refused the treatment.

>

> What happened next is scary. While hospital personnel tried to hold

the patient down in order to administer the exam anyway, very much

against the patient's wishes, the patient accidentally hit a doctor

while trying to break loose. Unfortunately, the hospital staff did

not wish to take " no " for an answer, and the patient was drugged and

later awoke with a tube in his throat and lubricant in his rectum,

handcuffed to a bed. It seems doctors have the authority to decide to

ignore the wishes of a patient if they feel the patient is incapable

of making an informed decision.

>

> While it might be reasonable to give doctors some latitude in these

matters, the story doesn't seem to make sense. If the patient was

truly unable to make an informed decision about his medical care, why

were misdemeanor assault charges filed against him for hitting the

doctor? Surely a patient who was incapable of rational thought should

not be held accountable if he were truly not thinking clearly and

only acting out due to an injury? Curiously, they all thought he was

thinking clearly enough to have him arrested for his actions but not

clearly enough to have the right to informed consent concerning his

care.

>

> Just how necessary is a rectal exam when someone sustains a head

injury, anyway? Clearly, not everyone who sustains a head injury and

goes to an emergency room receives a rectal exam, and some medical

professionals say that there are less invasive procedures that can be

used to determine the neurological status of a patient. The patient

in this case was quite responsive. He knew what exam the doctors

wanted to do, and he knew why. His lawyer insists that things

should've come to a halt the moment he said " no. "

>

> What is most disturbing to health freedom advocates is that the

patient did not prevail in his lawsuit against the hospital.

Hopefully, his lawyers will file an appeal. If any neurological

testing needs to be done, perhaps it would best be done on the jury

members who apparently have butts where their brains should be.

>

> References:

>

>

(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gn7nIqTvF7zSx6NAjqcHp5xD5AUAD906RT

180)

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know that I have ever heard of any jury that hasn't sat on its' brains, at least to some degree. : - ) ~~Ruth/REU

Re: Tyrannosaurus Med

How ridiculous!!

Patients have a right to refuse treatment....doctors usually have a patient sign some kind of waiver in these cases....which is a legal form to cover the doc's ass if something should happen to the patient after refusing recommended procedures/treatment.

and the patient lost his lawsuit??? That jury sure was sitting on their brains!!

A simple CAT scan would have revealed more than what the doc's fingers could have and less invasive too!!Maracuja <howdurdago > wrote:

Written with good humour but what an indictment!NaturalNews.com printable articleOriginally published May 26 2008Medical Tyranny: Patient Refuses Rectal Exam, Doctor Won't Butt Outby Joanne Waldron (see all articles by this author)(NaturalNews) Many people are under the impression that patients in the U.S. have the right to decline treatment if they are mentally competent and aware of the consequences of such a refusal. However, that doesn't seem to be the case if you visit certain hospitals. A construction worker who was hit in the head while on the job was taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center where he received eight stitches above his left eyebrow. When a doctor informed him that he needed to have a rectal exam in order to ascertain whether or not he sustained a spinal injury, the patient flatly refused the treatment.What happened next is scary. While hospital personnel tried to hold the patient down in order to administer the exam anyway, very much against the patient's wishes, the patient accidentally hit a doctor while trying to break loose. Unfortunately, the hospital staff did not wish to take "no" for an answer, and the patient was drugged and later awoke with a tube in his throat and lubricant in his rectum, handcuffed to a bed. It seems doctors have the authority to decide to ignore the wishes of a patient if they feel the patient is incapable of making an informed decision.While it might be reasonable to give doctors some latitude in these matters, the story doesn't seem to make sense. If the patient was truly unable to make an informed decision about his medical care, why were misdemeanor assault charges filed against him for hitting the doctor? Surely a patient who was incapable of rational thought should not be held accountable if he were truly not thinking clearly and only acting out due to an injury? Curiously, they all thought he was thinking clearly enough to have him arrested for his actions but not clearly enough to have the right to informed consent concerning his care.Just how necessary is a rectal exam when someone sustains a head injury, anyway? Clearly, not everyone who sustains a head injury and goes to an emergency room receives a rectal exam, and some medical professionals say that there are less invasive procedures that can be used to determine the neurological status of a patient. The patient in this case was quite responsive. He knew what exam the doctors wanted to do, and he knew why. His lawyer insists that things should've come to a halt the moment he said "no."What is most disturbing to health freedom advocates is that the patient did not prevail in his lawsuit against the hospital. Hopefully, his lawyers will file an appeal. If any neurological testing needs to be done, perhaps it would best be done on the jury members who apparently have butts where their brains should be.References:(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gn7nIqTvF7zSx6NAjqcHp5xD5AUAD906RT180)