Fwd: vbac on demand
From: R. Daniel Braun (rd.braun@gmail.com)
Sun May 25 19:27:49 2008
It goes that way until she meets a lawyer.
Dan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raymond Stephen <Stephen.Raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au>
Date: Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: vbac on demand
To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@mail.obgyn.net>
All of the concern about losing one's career and livelihood really applies
in a different way when you are faced with a patient who doesn't want to
accept your blanket policies. Is she more likely to sue you and win, if you
do what she wants and she has a bad outcome, or is it more likely, if you
don't do what she wants and has a different bad (to her) outcome. I would
have thought that, given that most litigation arises out of a situation
where a patient's expectations haven't been met, it is likely that the bad
outcome that you predicted will not lead to litigation, if you do what she
wants.
Steve
------------------------------
*From:* ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] *On Behalf Of *
------------------------------
DoctorJoe@aol.com
--
------------------------------
*Sent:* Saturday, 24 May 2008 1:43 AM
*To:* Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
*Subject:* Re: vbac on demand
In a message dated 5/23/08 9:54:06 AM, ajfields@pine-net.com writes:
Would that be that the physician's right to do whatever he wants trumps
the patient's right to informed consent? Or that the physician's legal
and financial risk are more important than the patient's physical risk?
Because I really can't see how the relative risks aren't important to
this woman's decision about her body.
There are two "rights" here (if you ignore the baby's right):
1) The woman's right to take whatever risks with her body (after being
informed what the risks are).
2) The physician's right to practice what he feels is good medicine (i.e.
not be forced against his better judgment into a course of action that he
feels is unacceptable, given the standards, the circumstances, etc.).
How you balance those two "rights" is the question.
We all talk of #1 a lot, as we should. But #1 does NOT automatically
overrule #2, by any means.
And sometimes, although I may be getting ahead of the argument here, there
is no easy solution to the problem and it ends up being decided on policy
grounds (e.g. you can't have patients willy-nilly showing up at hospitals
and demanding unacceptable procedures or treatments when the doctors don't
think they're warranted -- it would make the "system" unworkable).
Joe P.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by
legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons
to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that
any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised.
If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact
this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to
enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or
its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of
the information contained in this transmission. If the transmission contains
advice, the advice is based on instructions in relation to, and is provided
to the addressee in connection with, the matter mentioned above.
Responsibility is not accepted for reliance upon it by any other person or
for any other purpose.
--
R. Daniel Braun, MD FACOG(L) ABMP CMTh
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indiana U. School of Medicine
R. Daniel Braun
"Science without Religion is LAME; Religion without Science is BLIND"
Einstein 1941
