FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/19/2003 9:36:07 AM PST by dogbyte12
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) -- A hospital apologized for a laboratory mistake that resulted in the amputation of a healthy woman's breasts after she was mistakenly told she had an aggressive form of cancer.
Dr. Daniel Foley, medical director of United Hospital, told KARE-TV in the Twin Cities that the St. Paul hospital had made changes so "this kind of mixup would never happen again."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I suppose we will hear more cases simular to this, and unfortunately the system has been so abused, that of course, $250,000 IMHO, isn't enough compensation for her. But we've got to set limits.
I am so sorry for her.
sw
No damages at all. She is beyond child bearing ages and no longer needs her breasts. Therefore no actual damages can be assessed. Any damages beyond actual damages are just someone seeking a jackpot at the expense of the medical community and they should be denied and the person seeking them persecuted as a greedy liberal scum sucking lawyer. Medical malpractice is just a frivolous pursuit of liberal lawyers and isn't something which merits legal compensation.
This is my summation of all those tort reformers that have attacked me in the past for opposing "tort reform". See? In am now agreeing with you.
A second opinion would have probably relied on the same lab data.
That's not my idea of a second opinion - my idea of a second opinion is getting a complete work-up by another doctor, who does not rely on previously collected lab samples.
Maybe you could say the same about your self. You could loose your penis, wear a depends instead.
Bush says this woman shouldn't get more than $250,000 for this. Good thing she was employed at the time, or she wouldn't have any lost income to sue for. She shouldn't have to go through a big silly rigamarole to get compensated.
People keep saying we should set limits, but I just don't see why. Contrary to popular belief, multi-million dollar awards don't go to people with frivilous complaints. A cap isn't necessary to stop silly prople from getting rich, they don't get big awards in the first place.
All caps will do is stop people like this woman from getting compensated, and keep the negligent pathologist from declaring bankrupcy and finding another line of work, hopefully one that is less lucrative and less important to people's lives.
With caps, the pathologist just had a lower-income year, nothing worse. He can sit down and calculate how many times per year he can afford to do that, and still retire by 50.
Hey, sorry about your breasts, but don't get greedy on us now ...
As bad as this woman's story is, I have heard worse. Some malpractice suits involve not just negligence, but actual malice! Why should there be limits on punitive damages when there are no limits to the grief and trauma that a person can experience, and no limits to the wickedness and incompetence that a medical professional can demonstrate?
A man doesn't bear children. A man in never beyond child producing age (until he is actually dying). It's women that wear out, not men.
Like the clowns that like to routinely alter or sign womens genitalia? (note to skeptics: don't remember the exact case and don't feel like researching now, so don't ask. Anyone interested can do their own research)
But where do you think the money should come from?
The pathologist doesn't even have $250K, I bet. But if he/she did, you can bet he doesn't have a million, much less ten.
So insurance has to pay. Whose insurance?
And where does the "insurance company's" money come from?
OK, from doctors. But not all doctors are guilty here. And this is likely a one-time mistake, removing the guilt from all doctors for not weeding out a "bad apple".
OK, so the money is actually coming from you and me. From funds we paid, or set aside, for health care.
Can you justify taking money you and I budgeted for treatment (through buying health insurance) and paying anything other than actual losses?
This is exactly what happened to the other woman who tested negative for Cancer. Did she go for a "second opinion"? I don't think so. How many people get a second opinion on negative pathology reports, let's say, for example, moles?
Thank God they contacted the real BC Woman, who thought she was OK.
The pathology was correct, however, they just had the WRONG patient :~(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.