Fashion

[AuntG]

It seems totally justified to me....sometimes things aren't just about the money.

[KathyPet]

But you fail,to understand is that a judgement in a malpractice suit DOES NOT keep,that doctor from continuing to practice medicine. License revocation or suspension has nothing to do with a malpractice suit. The doctor can continue to practice unless the state licensing agency takes action which seldom happens except in the most egregious cases. So what has been gained here except $$ ? Unless the agencies involved in setting administering medical standards take action totally separate from the malpractice suit nothing changes.

[elated]

On 10/4/2014 KathyPet said: But you fail,to understand is that a judgement in a malpractice suit DOES NOT keep,that doctor from continuing to practice medicine. License revocation or suspension has nothing to do with a malpractice suit. The doctor can continue to practice unless the state licensing agency takes action which seldom happens except in the most egregious cases. So what has been gained here except $$ ? Unless the agencies involved in setting administering medical standards take action totally separate from the malpractice suit nothing changes.

I understand what you are trying to say but it will let patients know that this doctor had been sued for malpractice. Again, it might save someone's life who thought this doctor was the best. Joan Rivers was a high profile celebrity-- it might give other patients a pause regarding this doctor. You never know that her license to practice would not be pulled. Apparently, you were not a fan of Joan. Again, this is not about money. If someone killed your parent because they were negligent--I hope you would fight to see that justice would be done.

[151949]

On 10/5/2014 elated said:

On 10/4/2014 KathyPet said: But you fail,to understand is that a judgement in a malpractice suit DOES NOT keep,that doctor from continuing to practice medicine. License revocation or suspension has nothing to do with a malpractice suit. The doctor can continue to practice unless the state licensing agency takes action which seldom happens except in the most egregious cases. So what has been gained here except $$ ? Unless the agencies involved in setting administering medical standards take action totally separate from the malpractice suit nothing changes.

I understand what you are trying to say but it will let patients know that this doctor had been sued for malpractice. Again, it might save someone's life who thought this doctor was the best. Joan Rivers was a high profile celebrity-- it might give other patients a pause regarding this doctor. You never know that her license to practice would not be pulled. Apparently, you were not a fan of Joan. Again, this is not about money. If someone killed your parent because they were negligent--I hope you would fight to see that justice would be done.

Or it could ruin the career of someone who actually IS a really good doctor, because so many people have already tried and hung this poor guy without any of the facts at all.

[NanaS]

Its sad enough losing your Mom but losing her due to negligence is just

[NanaS]

Its sad enough losing your Mom but losing her due to negligence makes it all the more

heartbreaking.

[Tinkrbl44]

There's a few things we just don't know ......

First, what did the Medical Release form Joan signed cover ??

Secondly, can GROSS NEGLIGENCE be proved?

Thirdly, is there an age limit to whom the anesthesia Propofol can be administered?

Melissa certainly doesn't need the money, and even winning a lawsuit won't bring Joan back. Elderly ( and younger) people die during medical procedures all the time!

No need to ruin a doctor's career for something that, statistically, could have happened to anyone!

[12andcounting]

If Melissa does sue and if this is proven to be a "wrongful death" case, I certainly do not think she should personally get any money from the suit. I think the person or persons guilty should suffer the consequences, but if any money is won I think it should go to maybe a charity or something. Melissa certainly does NOT need the money and the money won't bring her mother back.

I'm not a fan of our "litigation-happy" society.

[stazgirl]

On 10/17/2014 Tinkrbl44 said:

There's a few things we just don't know ......

First, what did the Medical Release form Joan sign say ??

Secondly, can GROSS NEGLIGENCE be proved?

Thirdly, is there an age limit to whom the anesthesia Propofol can be administered?

Melissa certainly doesn't need the money, and even winning a lawsuit won't bring Joan back. Elderly ( and younger) people die during medical procedures all the time!

No need to ruin a doctor's career for something that, statistically, could have happened to anyone!

There is NO AGE limit, Her surgery was perfectly fine to be done at a surgicenter AND people die from complications everyday that could not be prevented. You are only hearing about Joan's because she is a clebrity. The consents you sign before ANY surgery have "death" listed as a "possible" consequence. Does not mean it happens often, but there is ALWAYS the possibility. That possibility GOES UP the older that your are. You can be young and alive on the outside, BUT please remember that we are still talking about an 81 yr old body with 81 yr old organs. SHe had already undergone numberous procedures, ALL which impact the body with surgical trauma (the fact that the plastic surgery was elective makes no difference) they were still surgical procedures that her body had to endure. UNLESS and UNTIL anything is PROVEN otherwise (which so far is not the case) I think we should allow Joan and her family to be at peace.

[chrystaltree]

Maybe she will, maybe she won't. Suing won't bring her mother back and she certainly doesn't need the money. We don't know if the legal definition of malpractice has been met. Malpractice is NOT what some people think it is. A doctor's mistake in judgement or a medical error is not always deemed to be malpractice. There's much more to this situation than any of us know. There's always a lot of doctor bashing on this thread but I personally think the issue is informed consent. People die under anesthesia, like it or not it's a fact. But...did Joan give her consent for the biopsy, was she informed that a biopsy or excision of a lesion would be done. Was she informed of the risks? Did she authorize that??? If she went just for the diagnostic laryngoscopy and did not authorize any other procedures, this is a slam dunk case. There was no "informed consent". My gut feeling is Joan never intended to have anything except the diagnositic scope done and her personal doc should never have done the biopsy. There's a terrible price that comes with fame and I think her doc got carried away with her celebrity status. If she'd been a retiree on Medicare....he never would have done the biopsy. As for granting privileges, doctors treat patients and do procedures at hospitals where they don't have privileges all the time. They are given temporary privileges either for a specific period of time or for a specific patient. I know this because my own mother was in a situation like that. She was taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital after cardiac event and her long time cardiologist did not have privileges at that hospital. My mom did not want to be transferred to another hospital but she did want her own physician. So her cardiologist was given temporary privileges so that she could be my mother's doctor.