(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Parents of woman who threw acid on herself still puzzled | Acid Attack Hoax: Why Did She Say Attacker Was Black? -- This reminds me simultaneously of the woman in South Carolina as well as the McCain staffer from the last days of the campaign.

Thanks to davidfcooper: In Professor-Dominatrix Scandal, U. of New Mexico Feels the Pain -- Better than fiction. I was so surprised to see Joy Harjo's name involved in this, even tangentially.

Doctor sued for 'branding' patient's uterus

I am Detained by Feds for Not Answering Questions -- more than one of my friends have recommended this read.

Comments

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Why in the fart does anyone THINK she might blame a black woman? SHIT! Easy and unfortunately believable stereotype, even this far into the 21th century. Give it another 100 years.


That doctor needs to be hideously tortured. There will be plenty of doctors left after this one is neutralized.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, the scapegoat is always the Other. Them's the rules.

As to your second point, I advocate the torture of no one. The doctor needs to be reprimanded so that he sees on how many levels he was wrong to do such a thing.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Maybe like how (duh, herp) they had the Hutus sit and listen to all of their victims after the the slaughter in 1993?

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Why was the doctor wrong at all? Additional labeling is becoming more and more of a standard practice in medicine, as a safety precaution.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Here is the initial comment I made in the (locked) journal from which the link originated:

I still don't know why, if he felt he needed to be sure it didn't get "mixed up" with anyone else's organs (& how common a hazard is that?), he didn't just use her initials? Or a number?

The feminist in me is definitely rankled by this, although at the outset I thought it naturally fell in with the entitlement certain doctors displayed in the early 20th century, where they would--as a matter of course--ligate womens' fallopian tubes if it seemed they [the women] had had enough children, was poor, was nonwhite, e&. Many of these doctors were associated with the eugenics movement of the late 19th century. Doctors, in their position & station in society, were perceived (or perceived themselves) to know what was best for society in the long run, blithe to the concerns of the individual women they treated. The doctor in this story could easily be transplanted back to that era.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Doctors getting parts mixed up is a major hazard, and they've been pushing lately to label what parts are and are not supposed to operated upon in marker before surgery. Labeling removed parts destined to be biopsied seems like the same basic idea, and her name was just more distinctive than initials would be.

A number would be worthless, as it's easier to misread or mis-write that than to make a mistake with the container.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

You're really missing the point. The doctor did nothing less than reduce that patient to her reproductive organs. I really can't see how you don't recognize that.

Doctors getting parts mixed up is a major hazard

If the doctor is getting multiple uteri mixed up (how many uterus removals does he do in a week, anyway??), his office has bigger problems than have heretofore been discussed.

The article stated that branding an organ is not standard practice. If the doctor felt that such an action were permissible, why did he then hesitate to show the X-ray to his patient? Why was the patient (& her husband) aghast? Why did the happenstance make the national news in the first place?

Of the people I know who are discussing this news story on various blogs, you are the only one to even hint that this doctor's actions were aboveboard in any fashion.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

The doctor did nothing less than reduce that patient to her reproductive organs.
That's his profession.

If the doctor is getting multiple uteri mixed up... his office has bigger problems
Doctors and nurses make mistakes all the time, and systemic ways to prevent that are one of the biggest issues in medicine lately. That includes medical IT, checklists, incompatible connectors for things that shouldn't be connected, and extra labeling.

Should he wait until he tells the wrong woman she has uterine cancer before taking a new safety measure?

The article stated that branding an organ is not standard practice.
Everything has to start somewhere.

why did he then hesitate to show the X-ray to his patient? Why was the patient (& her husband) aghast? Why did the happenstance make the national news in the first place?
Because people will take offense at damn near anything.


When I first saw the story on CNN, there were dozens of comments before I saw anything other than "What's the problem?".

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Should he wait until he tells the wrong woman she has uterine cancer before taking a new safety measure?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I assume that a test for uterine cancer was performed prior to the hysterectomy. Believe me, I've done research into the procedure (because when I was younger, I wanted to see if I could get one done to avoid menstruation if I knew I didn't want children); it is standard practice that unnecessary hysterectomies are not performed. I would wager that preventative hysterectomies fall under the same category. There would need to be proof that the procedure was medically necessary.

When I first saw the story on CNN, there were dozens of comments before I saw anything other than "What's the problem?".

When I first saw the story at CNN, there were no comments on the page.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

He didn't write the name on the container! He wrote it on the organ itself. You do see the difference, don't you?

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. Writing it on both is safer.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

It's not safer if it's opening the doctor up to malpractice suits.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

It's not safer from a selfish, legal standpoint, no. I was thinking more of the actual safety of his patients.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Explain to me the logic of his actions. He said he branded the organ so he wouldn't get it mixed up with anyone else's.

However, if the reason why the suit is frivolous (as you seem to imply), why would he need to keep track of the organ anyway, if it's simply "medical waste"? What need did he have for keeping track of it in the first place?

His actions do not make sense. Moreover, his actions caused burns to the inside of the patient's leg, the sole reason for her going back to the doctor after the operation was successful. Causing burns does not increase safety for the patient. It appears that the act of using the device to brand caused more harm than if he hadn't used it in such a manner.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

What need did he have for keeping track of it in the first place?
How would I know? There are plenty of times where some organ or another is removed and not just thrown away, though. My mom had a hysterectomy to help her migraines, but I would expect some sort of examination to go on once it's out, anyway.


Yes, if this really was the cause of the burns, that's a problem and might be decent grounds for a suit. The reports I saw weren't clear about it. It didn't sound like that's why the couple was so upset, though -- this sounds more like the Catholic church talking about embryos.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Doctor Branded Woman's Uterus After Surgery -- original source at The Smoking Gun.

Read the above & you'll see that 1) the doctor took more than 50 pictures of the uterus after the surgery, including at least one with him holding it after her name was branded on it; 2) the patient's husband claims that he has "been 'permanently injured and damaged' due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife"; 3) the suit "does not specify monetary damages", meaning the couple seeks none. (This last point is confirmed here.)

As for the branding being the cause of the burns, many of the comments at TheSmokingGun detail how exactly burns could indeed have been caused by the electrocautery device even if he had placed a grounding pad beneath it (assuming such a pad was placed on the woman's thigh): arcing from the device may have injured the tissue surrounding the pad. If this is indeed what happened, then the doctor was negligent at best & deserves some reprimand.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Apart from negligence, if he did the branding while it was set on top of her, that's just startlingly stupid. The reports are kinda vague, though.

The "gesture of friendship" stuff sounds pretty seedy, so maybe he's just full of shit and really was screwing around.

In general, though, labeling removed organs (whatever they may be) strikes me as a really good idea.