If You Lost Someone During Operation, Would You Sue?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2005-07-19 01:13am

As said, if someone you loved dearly underwent a surgical procedure that they weren't sure of but the doctors recommend it and during the operation, complications arose and they died, would you sue the hospital? I used to be of the mentality that there are way too many medical malpractice lawsuits today and that many of them weren't warranted, but now I'm starting to see a little different.

My grandfather was just announced today that he has stomach cancer and that the doctors wanted to operate on him as soon as tomorrow, if he consented (it was thought that it was just a stomach ulcer at first). But I'm not sure if he should choose the operation, considering his age. He's in his late seventies, has hypertension and diabetes, and has lost a considerable amount of weight the past year. My mom has been going crazy over this and keeps bringing up these stories of people she knows who have lost family members during an operation. Everything has just been so greatly escalated in the past few days and I have no idea what to do anymore.

Anyways, so, if you lost someone during an operation, would you sue the hospital?

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-07-19 01:22am

I would say that it would depend on the circumstances. I would definitely need to know the results of an autopsy and consult another doctor on whether the operation was up to snuff or not, based upon the results of the autopsy. If it was something unavoidable for the surgeon, then no, there is no point to sue. However, if he did something like dropped his scalpel and severed a large artery to the heart, causing heart failure (and death), then yes, I would sue.

So, my answer is: Yes and no.

HSRTG · Post by **HSRTG** » 2005-07-19 01:34am

It honestly depends on the complications; whether they arose out of a surgeon's mistake or not.

It also depends on whether that mistake was honest or a result of drinking or total incompetence. I would ask for a second and third opinion on the operation as I would not be the most objective (and knowledgeable) person.

The second option is that the patient's body simply decided to shut down due to various health complications. I don't know anything about what drugs do what to which or happens as a result. Is there a doctor in the house? (no sarcasm/pun)

No matter what I would try to sue - if it was incompetence of some kind - the doctor(s) responsible and try to leave the hospital as a whole out of it. Hospitals (I think) are pretty much sacrosanct and should be left alone when it comes to lawsuits.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-07-19 01:51am

If I'm told that its a simple procedure with no real complications and the person dies, then fuck yes.

If I'm told that its a risky procedure, with many possible problems and the person dies, then probably not.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-07-19 02:23am

what weemando said

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-07-19 10:08am

It really, really depends on circumstances.

Quite frankly, a person over 65 or so kicking it on the table, well, unless there was a major fuck up by the doctor, no.

However, say killing my kid during a tonsileticmy, a malpractice lawsuit would be the least of there legal worries

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-19 10:53am

Regarding the evils of malpractice lawsuits as promoted by the Right:

Did any of you know that medical liability lawsuit payouts by the malpractice insurance industry are going down, not up? According to the consumer advocacy group "Center for Justice and Democracy" (yes, it's a cheesy name, I know), insurance industry payouts for malpractice lawsuits have remained flat over the last five years, even though insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 120%. So in other words, the insurance companies are lining their pockets while blaming an imaginary wave of lawsuit-happy patients.

Ninja of the North · Post by **Ninja of the North** » 2005-07-19 11:19am

Personally, I would only sue if it was the doctor's fault and he actually committed malpractice. You really can't expect these men and women to be miracle workers. But, they also can't be fucking idiots.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2005-07-19 12:32pm

You have to look seriously at the conditions of the death, the patients health before entering surgery, and undiagnosed conditions that may have hindered the survival stats as well as HONEST history of the patient. That last thing alone probably kills more people than surgeons.

No more than a week ago I got a chart for a 27 year old male who had come into the ER with intense abdominal pain. MRI's where done noting air as well as hemoraging of the liver. He was diagnosed with primary necrotic pancreatitis and secondary renal failure, liver failure, diabetes, and hyperthyroidism all caused by his necrotic panreatitis. As one may surmise, this fellow did not survive (brain death, unable to reinitiate spontaneous electrical activity.)

Now, the way one goes about killing 60 plus percent of their pancreas is by excessive (I use that word conservativly) drinking. The history given by this guy and his family was, however, that this guy drank like the saint he was working to be (was visiting during a break from his priest seminary.) And of course the family has attempted to sue the hospital for malpractice because we killed him (they refused to enact a DNR/DNI order or to remove life support) despite the fact that none of them will give us a straight forward answer about how much was 'not much' liquor consumption. You shouldn't sue the hospital just because you've convinced yourself it wasn't the persons fault, one should look very closely at the circumstances of death.

Of course, this isn't to say hospitals aren't at fault at times. The hospital my fiance works at had a guy come in complaining of chest pains a year after a valve bypass... when an X-ray was taken imagine the egg on the surgeons face when they saw a scalpel figure beneath his sternum. As well, their was another blatant case of malpractice in my hometown at the Lovelace Womens/Childrens health center. Essentially a nurse killed a kid because she couldn't get the airmask on him (he had a pulse/ox level of 20) and stuck an IV straight down into his arm... suppose the fact she was shitfaced drunk didn't help matters any...

Moral of my rant, look at all the evidence and decide. Be honest to yourself. If your unsure about your grandfathers chances of survival, get a second opinion on options. Weigh how risky the procedure is and then make a decision. But also keep in mind, whenever you go under the knife you can ALWAYS die... even for a tonsilectomy (Anesthia can kill to, and don't make me tell the story of the exploding leg at the UNMH ER... )

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2005-07-19 01:15pm

Yes you're right. I worded my words poorly. I do agree that it depends on the circumstances and that many health care proffessionals can't always perform mericles. In my own particular case, I was just struck at the rapidity of the hospital in their desire to want to operate so soon.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2005-07-19 01:50pm

From the sounds of it they are trying to reduce damage by fixing the problem before it escalates. The guy with the exploding leg could've saved himself if he had come in once in a while for a check-up... or even if he had shown up several hours earlier. As is, the situation escalated until his leg popped because to much time lapsed (admittidly, he could have been more truthfull about giving his history to the triage nurse... instead he downgraded everything and thus was downgraded to level 3 or you wait till everyone else is seen... )

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-07-19 01:51pm

Medical science is not perfect. I would only sue if there was some kind of negiglance involved.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-07-19 04:54pm

Only sue if you are damned sure the doctor fucked up big time, and even then, think twice. Doctors are human, too, and the doctor probably doesn't need the stress of a lawsuit on top of his screaming conscience.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-07-19 06:33pm

I probably wouldn't sue, because I genuinely believe that most people in the medical profession will do what they can to save the lives of their patients. Of course, I may choose to sue if there's something else involved, like complete neglegence, incompetency, or drinking (or perhaps something worse...). For the most part, though, no.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-07-19 08:50pm

Larz wrote:From the sounds of it they are trying to reduce damage by fixing the problem before it escalates. The guy with the exploding leg could've saved himself if he had come in once in a while for a check-up... or even if he had shown up several hours earlier. As is, the situation escalated until his leg popped because to much time lapsed (admittidly, he could have been more truthfull about giving his history to the triage nurse... instead he downgraded everything and thus was downgraded to level 3 or you wait till everyone else is seen... )

A bit off topic, but how did someone get an exploding leg? Compartment syndrome ?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-07-19 09:09pm

If there was conclusive evidence of negligence, then yes. You have to remember, ANY invasive surgery is risky and you can die from having a tooth pulled at the dentist (has happened) letalone having keyhole surgery on your heart. Surgeons can only do so much and are human, only when they make mistakes people tend to die.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-20 12:48am

The simpler the surgery, the more likely a doctor will get sued for fucking up. If a 20 year old dies from a trip to the dentist, he's gonna get a lawsuit whipped up his ass so fast he won't have a chance to breathe.

Coalition · Post by **Coalition** » 2005-07-20 02:54am

If the doctor was directly responsible, and it was preventable, and I decided to sue, I'd copy (I think it was) Darth Wong's idea about sending the sue settlement to a local charity.

The hospital and doctor get a stern reminder to be careful, and it sets a nice precedent for future cases.

Larz · Post by **Larz** » 2005-07-20 03:23am

mr friendly guy wrote:
Larz wrote:<snip>
A bit off topic, but how did someone get an exploding leg? Compartment syndrome ?

Serious thrombosis and hypertension issues with a leg that he had injured somehow (believe he fell off a telephone pole several weeks previous). He had come in for some small puncture wound, sat around and when he finally stood up to go somewhere the muscle split from the puncture wound and... well... messy. I believe they amputated from his thigh down due to such poor health.

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2005-07-20 04:03am

It depends on the situation. I'd definitely demand a full autopsy and a copy of the autopsy report; I'm a premed student, and anything in there I don't understand my professors will.

If it was a stupid, incompetent fuckup that caused the death, I'll go to the hospital administration and demand that they fire the doctor or doctors responsible for it. If they refuse, I'll sue their asses off. If, on the other hand, it was a tragic mistake or unexpected complication that they couldn't do anything about...I won't be happy, but I understand. No hard feelings.

FireNexus · Post by **FireNexus** » 2005-07-20 04:33am

As far as the stomach cancer goes, they have to operate immediately, or ASAP, or the cancer will kill him. The first step in cancer treatment is always to remove as much of the tumor as possible, then start chemo and radiation therapy.

As far as the suing of doctors, it depends on the surgery. If someone is in poor health (like your pop) but needs the surgery to take the chances of dying down from certain, then there is a risk that the surgery will kill him. In your grandfather's case, going to sleep and never waking up is way preferable to the prolonged, agonizing death that the cancer would provide him. Minor surgeries still carry risks, but generally (and this is a big generalization here) those risks involve a doctor screwing up big time.

I had a laproscopic gallbladder removal about two years ago (funny thing, when they took it out they assured me I was done with gall stones, then i got one in my common bile duct last year. Come to think of it, I think I get them regularly, but pass them without them getting stuck) and if they had killed me in the course of that surgery, I would hope my father would've sued.

Anyway, if your grandfather dies on the table, you shouldn't sue. The risks to him if they don't operate are far graver than the risks the operation carries.

I'm done now.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2005-07-20 06:13am

Larz wrote:No more than a week ago I got a chart for a 27 year old male who had come into the ER with intense abdominal pain. MRI's where done noting air as well as hemoraging of the liver. He was diagnosed with primary necrotic pancreatitis and secondary renal failure, liver failure, diabetes, and hyperthyroidism all caused by his necrotic panreatitis. As one may surmise, this fellow did not survive (brain death, unable to reinitiate spontaneous electrical activity.)

Now, the way one goes about killing 60 plus percent of their pancreas is by excessive (I use that word conservativly) drinking. The history given by this guy and his family was, however, that this guy drank like the saint he was working to be (was visiting during a break from his priest seminary.) And of course the family has attempted to sue the hospital for malpractice because we killed him (they refused to enact a DNR/DNI order or to remove life support) despite the fact that none of them will give us a straight forward answer about how much was 'not much' liquor consumption.

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but up to 30% of people with pancreatitis have no known risk factors for the disorder. Excessive drinking is, as you point out, the biggest risk factor. Number two is gallstones.

My Other Half suffered a battle with pancreatitis almost two years ago (but survived) and is genuine teetotaler with no past history of heavy drinking. I spent two weeks telling the medical staff that, with the definite sense they thought I was lying, retarded, or both. It is possible the man's family was telling the truth. Or not.

Granted, 27 is awful young for this - pancreatitis is usually seen in the over-40 crowd.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2005-07-20 06:53am

I'm sorry about your grandfather.

I second FireNexus.

Outside of a clear cut case of incompetance or negligence in the performance of the procedure, lawsuits are not a concern. The benefits far outweight the risks, and the need to worry about such things is unnecessary, since complications are rare enough.

More important to help your grandpa build the confidence he needs to go through with it. Assuring him, with a feral grin, that in the unlikley event of tragedy he will be avenged by the nastiest lawyer you can hire might be of some comfort, though.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2005-07-20 11:55am

My grandfather (dad's side), died of lung cancer. Several Years before, he got an X-ray of his lungs, back when the cancer was still small and treatable. That X-ray was locked up in a file cabnet somewhere. The doctor never read it. If he had, my grandfather would have lived for at least a few more years and might still be alive today. We managed to sue the doctor for malpractice. Now, say he had looked at the X-rays, then diagnosed him and treated him. If he still died, we would not have sued.

It really depends on the circumstances. You can't just answer with a Yes or No.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-07-20 10:02pm

Broomstick wrote: Perhaps you are not aware of this, but up to 30% of people with pancreatitis have no known risk factors for the disorder. Excessive drinking is, as you point out, the biggest risk factor. Number two is gallstones.

My Other Half suffered a battle with pancreatitis almost two years ago (but survived) and is genuine teetotaler with no past history of heavy drinking. I spent two weeks telling the medical staff that, with the definite sense they thought I was lying, retarded, or both. It is possible the man's family was telling the truth. Or not.

Granted, 27 is awful young for this - pancreatitis is usually seen in the over-40 crowd.

I'm 22 and I've been hit with it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS