Re: vbac on demand
From: Jamie (ajfields@pine-net.com)
Sun May 25 19:56:24 2008
At this point it can be difficult to find a lawyer to take a case for
unnecessary c/s. I can see it going that way, though. Cultivating a
relationship with the patient is still IMO the best protection a
caregiver can have against being sued.
At Sun, 25 May 2008, Raymond Stephen wrote:
>
>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.
>
--
JFields, RN, BSN
|
|
