Re: LAW Reviving the dead case
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Nov 13 10:16:07 2007
I'd say S-U-C-K-E-R is more like it. BTW, it's time to revisit the
U-N-I-O-N issue.
Art
At Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Richard Chudacoff wrote:
>
>Yep..we should be call OB/GYN/LOTTO
>
>--
>Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
>
>Las Vegas International Center for Advanced Gynecologic Care
>
>(Specializing in minimally and non-invasive surgery)
>
>2481 Professional Court
>Las Vegas, NV 89128
>
>TEL: 702-485-8893
>
>FAX: 702-974-0945
>
>www.lasvegasgyncenter.com <http://www.lasvegasgyncenter.com/>
>
>www.exablateoflasvegas.com <http://www.exablateoflasvegas.com/>
>
>The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. If you
>are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
>intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination
>or copying of this e-mail and its attachments, if any, or the information
>contained herein is prohibited. If you have received the e-mail in error,
>please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail or phone and delete
>this e-mail. Thank you.
>
> _____
>
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Lynn
>Montgomery
>Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:09 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: Re: LAW Reviving the dead case
>
>Richard, Richard, she would have sued for mismanagement of the labor and/or
>delivery of course!
>
>Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.
>
>Obstetrics & Gynecology, Maternal-Fetal Medicine
>
>The Birth Center/Rocky Mountain Women's Health
>
>1211 S. Reserve St.
>
>Missoula, Montana, 59801
>
>406-549-0978
>
>fax 406-549-0987
>
>e-mail: apgar10@thebirthcentermt.com
>
> _____
>
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Richard
>Chudacoff
>Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:14 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: Re: LAW Reviving the dead case
>
>Wonder what the parents would have sued for if the baby died.
>
>Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
>
> _____
>
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>DoctorJoe@aol.com
>Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:02 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: LAW Reviving the dead case
>
> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_scow_revived_baby.html>
>Court: Doctor Not Liable for Reviving Child
>
> <http://www.trialsmith.com/images/spacer.gif>
>
>A doctor who revived a baby born without a heartbeat and who now suffers
>from severe disabilities cannot be held liable for malpractice, the
>Washington Supreme Court has ruled. The child's parents argued that the
>doctor should have sought consent before attempting to resuscitate the child
>for more than half an hour. The justice reasoned that saving a life is the
>preferable outcome, even if it means disability for the patient. Curt
>Woodward, Seattle Post-Intelligencer 11/08/2007
>
>Read Article:
><http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_scow_revived_baby.html>
>Seattle Post-Intelligencer
>
>Interesting that this comes from the Left Coast, but it seems to hold with
>classic legal reasoning. Live is preferable to death -- the rest is just
>details. Or something like that.
>
>Joe P.
>
> _____
>
>and Make AOL Your
>
--
art fougner, md
"May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
