Posted on 01/21/2006 4:15:11 PM PST by Popman
"Didn't someone have to sign a consent form for the amputations?
[Something doesn't sound right in this story.]"
That's what I thought. Her medical information should be available to her. The fact that they're withholding this and she has to file a lawsuit to get the info sounds REALLY, REALLY fishy. IMO, she should own the hosiptal and drs. if this turns out to not be legit. And they should lose their liscense and get jail time, forever.
You are REALLY bad!!! LOL
Unbelievable
I guess the thing that really has me puzzled is.... ALL FOUR LIMBS? At the same time? It just seems that the odds of that happening would be more than a little remote. This is weird.
You'd think her lawyer would foot the bill. : )
If I were in her shoes; I would.
you know we are both going to hell, don't you? :)
"The amputations saved her life. What would most people choose, I wonder? Death or being a quadruple amputee for the rest of your life?"
So, the hospitals don't have to consult the family members if they intend to proceed with amputation? Or is that too socialistic?
I thought that was spelled with an 'e' instead of an 'a'..
Unless they died.
Ah...to heel with it! LOL!
I hope she wins a bundle.
depends. If the hospital acted in its best capacity and she does not remember what happened because of the illness, why should she win anything?
I did.
If my wife went into the hospital healthy and came out a quadruple-amputee, refusing to answer a question would be a bad life choice for someone.
So, the hospitals don't have to consult the family members if they intend to proceed with amputation? Or is that too socialistic?"
I wasn't commenting on that aspect at all. My comment was directed to the fact that the hospital simply didn't let her die after gangrene set in and thus saved her life. It is unclear how she was infected as much as people here want to speculate. She could just as easily have walked in infected as caught it in the hospital. People do get gangrene outside of hospitals.
I also asked the question of freepers as to which they would prefer, to be dead (because the hospital refused to act) or to have the hospital save your life resulting in your being a 4x amputee? Which would you prefer? Some people would rather be dead, others want to cling to life.
George or Jeb? Or both?
This is FR.
If you come into a hospital normal...deliver a baby normally, and then, within 24 hours catch a flesh eating disease, I would confidentally assume it was the hospital's fault. That's why they need to see who else had that disease. It's a natural request and they should get it. They don't need to know names, they just need to know if others had it in that hospital at the same time she was admitted.
AHs sorry bohs, I wuz jes' followin' de age ole tradition of checkin' spellin'....
You hit the nail on the head.
I know a man whose wife had the flu, was to spend a few days in the hospital, ended up with a nasty staph infection and then SYPHILLIS, and DIED.
It was unbelievable.
The real tragedy is that she probably could have beaten the flu at home. She was in her 60's. She may have had a weakend immune system, but being in the hospital surely made things worse.
Ok. This stuff is fast moving and certainly lethal. But noone was able to talk with the husband and brief him as to the wife's problems? He could not have been far from the hospital?
The other question, is how did she contract the bacteria? If the hospital was in any way at fault, I could see why they are stonewalling the family. There is probably a medical license or two that could be at stake, not to mention the millions from a malpractice suit.
I am sure she knew she had an infection and would need surgery
Popman,
She would likely have been in severe shock and completely incapable of knowing anything. But,,,,what about the husband?
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.