I would think that would be clear to anyone but, given your posts on this thread, I have serious doubts.
17 Q. Okay. So the urethra is no longer intact? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And the -- what happens if the urethra is not intact? 20 A. The patient is unable to urinate, and they actually will 21 have back pressure, and potential back pressure into the 22 kidneys, if they're unable to urinate. 23 Q. Okay. What do you mean by that? 24 A. The bladder fills, they get a pressure sensation, as though 25 they have to urinate, but cannot. And that pressure will be 1 transmitted back to the kidneys over time. 2 Q. Okay. And, over time, then, what would happen to the 3 kidneys? 4 A. Anybody that actually was obstructed for that period of 5 time could potentially have some acute renal failure. 6 Q. Okay. And is that a life-threatening problem? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What about infection? 9 A. Infection, because you're not draining your bladder system, 10 is there. It's a possibility. But the renal failure, or the 11 back pressure and the discomfort, is going to be the number one 12 things. 13 Q. Okay. And what about bladder rupture? 14 A. Bladder rupture is unusual, to actually see that, because 15 most people are going to present with something as far as pain 16 and discomfort before that. Is it a possibility? It's always 17 a possibility, but it would be very rare.
It’s right there in front of you, and yet you cannot understand.
For example, when the prosecuter asked about bladder rupture, the doctor said it was unusual. Why? Because way before that happened, the pain would be intense enough that the patient would come in and get treated.
In the same manner, infection is a possibility, but again the pain would usually lead to treatment, so that was the big thing.
You act as if people are born with a catheter. Your statement is that because he recieved treatment, his injury wasn’t life-threatening. That’s like saying that my father’s heart condition wasn’t life-threatening because they caught it and treated it before it killed him.
Even if you can’t see your illogic, I hope others can, but given the audience I have serious doubts.
How would Davila empty his bladder if he didn’t have a catheter? He wouldn’t. If he didn’t, what would happen? potential Renal failure. Note also the doctor’s use of the term “over THAT period of time”. The doctor assumes that eventually, the pain would drive the patient to treatment, and therefore indicates a “period of time” he thinks it’s possible they would go without treatment. If the patient NEVER got treatment, they would die, it’s not just a “possibility”, but the doctor cannot imagine a patient not getting treatment at some point.
The injury was life-threatening. Treatment was necessary to remove the life-threatening risk caused by the injury.
The infection was not considered as serious a risk since again there was the time issue related to the pain that would be caused by a full bladder.
Your continued insistance that the injury was not life-threatening, or that the doctor didn’t say the injury was life-threatening, is incorrect.