Just had Surgery Done..mixed feelings..please help

My surgery of choice is the DS or NOTHING!  If I came out with ANYTHING else I would be  consulting with a malpractice attorney immediately. There are very specific reasons why *I* chose the DS and not the RNY or band. All WLSs are NOT the same and interchangeable.  At the very least, this surgeon could have performed a VSG and she could have consulted with a more experienced DS surgeon to get the switch later. Now she's stuck with a pouch, and to  revise to a DS from this is a very complicated surgery (but possible).

 

You, then, are an ideal patient...whatever the doctor decides is good enough for you and, to boot, it is some kind of gift from some entity in the sky.  If this vision of what life is all about is what keeps you getting out of bed in the morning, good for you...but we are not all similarly afflicted.

Not everybody trusts some "it all happens for a reason" mantra, or magical or mystical stuff,  or any other human, including their doctor or their spouse, to make a choice that they have the legal and moral and ethical right to make for themselves...most especially if it is an elective surgery.

A year after having cancer elsewhere I found a lump in my breast.  The doctors at City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, CA, wanted to excise the lump and have the pathologists do a frozen section (95% accuracy at that time) and then make a decision as to if they should close me up or continue with further surgery.  I said, "No.  Take the tissue, sent it to pathology and close.  Call me when you get the results, because what to do about my boob is gong to have to be MY decision."  And, by the way, this was City of Hope...I didn't pay a dime, I was only 31 years old and I still made my own decisions.

You are right about one thing...it IS all about how you look at life.  And I'm responsible for mine.  I'm here alone and have to solve my own problems.  Platitudes are for those who would manipulate weaker humans...and for the weaker humans who need them.  So your failure to MENTION that she had every right to be at least indignant about being provided with a surgery that she did not choose to have was not a failure to pour salt into an open wound...it was a failure to validate the feelings that she and any other thinking human would be going through at the time.  You essentially told her to be happy for getting SOMETHING...ANYTHING...as if SOMETHING and ANYTHING are all she deserves.

Keep counting your  blessings if that makes you happy...but don't assume that you have the right to decide what is or is not a blessing--or a curse--to someone else.  We each get to decide THAT for ourselves, thankyouverymuch.

First of all, we do not know ALL OF THE FACTS.  Before any of us encourage California Mom to tell her doctor to "go take a leap" we should suggest that she at least find out of there is another physician ready to treat her.  What suggestions do you have to her for that?  Once she fires the doctor, then what?

Your comment about the "entity in the sky" doesn't even deserve a response.  It just shows that you don't get it.  Have a wonderful life.

 

"Have a wonderful life."

I don't need to ACTUALLY "have a wonderful life", according to you.  All I have to do is mindlessly recite that whatever happen happens for a reason and I'll THINK I have a wonderful life.  

And I'd wish you a wonderful surgery...but even if you wake up with your foot surgically attached to your vagina and your left tit sewn into your right earlobe, you'd just decide it all happened for a reason and be happy as a clam anyway.  The brainwashed don't NEED good luck...they'll be happy with anything they get.

Yes but are you a PRACTICING lawyer because you are giving bad advice right here!

I am an Nurse Practitioner with 15 years advanced clinical experience and I can tell you that if a patient consented for a choleycystectomy and instead we did a Whipple's procedure we would have no defensible position in a Court of law.  If this wasn't an immediate lifesaving procedure then there is no justification to not closing the patient up, recovering them and rescheduling surgery once the proper INFORMED consent has been obtained.

You have just justified malpractice based on the patient getting a bad reputation amongst the medical community yet the said surgeon gets to commit malpractice and goes unchecked thus disgracing the surgical community and bringing the reputation of reputable surgeons into disrepute.

If this woman takes this to court she has a very strong case for malpractice supported by a screed of clinical paperwork.  Adhesion's are easily examined via an elective laproscopic procedure and documented for this patients defense.   If this is the ONLY reason as to why the DS could not be performed then this could be easily discredited with this evidence.

Californiamom2 needs to prosecute this Dr for what he has done to her.  He/She has operated using deception and poor clinical judgment.  This is a legitimate case not ambulance chasing and I am particularly annoyed you would play this down.

I only hope you are better at bible thumping then law!

First of all, you should understand that I did not give any advice.  I only shared what I knew about medical malpractice in this state.  Since you know so much about medical malpractice cases, perhaps you can refer Californiamom to some doctors who will be willing to testify against her doctor.

As I told Cal Culator, and as I have said before, we do not know all of the facts.  If the doctor has breached his standard of care and she has another doctor to back that up, then fine.  Even if the doctor breached his duty, if she cannot get another medical doctor to say so, then she's still out of luck.

All I can say is that I threw out some ideas from the perspective that I saw them.  Certainly they were not deserving of your insults.  Finally, in the United States we do not prosecute people for civil violations.  That word is only used in criminal situations. 

She may not need another medical testimony if she has strong physical evidence thus your bone rattling on this issues makes me assume you have an invested interest in dissuading this woman to take action.  Perhaps you are a bariatric surgeon trolling about or a member of staff??  At any rate you are sharing information that will not benefit this woman!

p.s.

v. pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing, pros·e·cutes v.tr. 1. Law a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against. b. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action. 2. a. To pursue (an undertaking, for example****il completion; follow to the very end. b. To chase or pursue (a vessel): "He held a dispatch saying that [they] had prosecuted and probably killed an Echo-class missile submarine" (Tom Clancy). 3. To carry on, engage in, or practice. v.intr. Law 1. To initiate and conduct legal proceedings. 2. To act as prosecutor.

Kirmy,

The way you used the word prosecute in the sentence is the way LAWYERS use it in a criminal context.  

No, I am not a bariatric surgeon, nor do I work in the health field.  I don't know the doctor, nor do I know anything about his practice.  For you to suggest that I have an ulterior motive is ridiculous.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  Why are you so mean and angry?  Are you suggestng that people can't disagree?  I surely hope not.  I thought the purpose of these boards was to exchange ideas.  Obviously all you want to do is attack people who express  a different or possibly controversial opinion.

Furthermore I addressed a recent post to Californiamom in which I apologized if I offended her and told her that ultimately she needed to do what was best for her.

The only bones that are rattling are the ones in your brain because the brain matter is apparently lacking.  Have a wonderful life! 

You might want to look at this: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/08/24/prl20824.htm

And further to what Kirmy just schooled you on regarding the aptness of the definition of "prosecute" for civil actions, I'm a patent attorney, and we prosecute patent applications before the USPTO.  That is a civil, in fact adminstrative, procedure.

Point, Kirmy.

You may want to look at the way the young lady used the word prosecute in the sentence.

As to the issue of informed consent, neither of us knows what the document says...........it could support Californiamom or it could support the doctor.  This we do not know. 

In the meantime, since you live in CA, perhaps you can suggest a surgeon who would be willing to treat her now in the event that she decidesto "can" her doctor.