Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 141 142 [143] 144 145 ... 297

Author Topic: Occupying Wallstreet  (Read 294259 times)

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2130 on: December 05, 2011, 01:08:57 pm »

I know this is only tangential to the topic, but for the record, you don't need consent to perform emergency care.

Actually... You do.
[See good Samaritan act]

The only time this is not applicable is if they're not capable of giving consent at the time, i.e. they're unconscious.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2131 on: December 05, 2011, 01:26:12 pm »

Going back to the example, removing a malignant brain tumour is hardly ER stuff.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2132 on: December 05, 2011, 01:28:13 pm »

Going back to the example, removing a malignant brain tumour is hardly ER stuff.

Wait, removing a brain tumor that hates you? I don't think there's a law for that in ER....

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2133 on: December 05, 2011, 02:28:12 pm »

Going back to the example, removing a malignant brain tumour is hardly ER stuff.

It was for my uncle.  Not all cancer is detected early.  I mean if wasn't literally ER stuff, but he was unconscious the entire time until they removed it.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2134 on: December 05, 2011, 02:59:22 pm »

But the argument you said makes so sense.  A patient comes into the ER unconscious.  A doctor treats them without consent.  I would personally bitch slap that patient if they sued. 

The patient would win and has historically. You don't agree with it. It absolutely makes sense and is the law. It is the the patient's body; the only person who may do anything to it is a person with their consent, period. The unconscious stuff, you must have implied consent to what the reasonable patient would consent to if they were awake. The doctor goes that route at his own peril and if he is wrong, then it is his own cost. This has always been the law in the United States.

"It is the settled rule that therapy not authorized by the patient may amount to a tort-a common law battery-by the physician."
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote
It was for my uncle.  Not all cancer is detected early.  I mean if wasn't literally ER stuff, but he was unconscious the entire time until they removed it.

If your uncle did not consent and wanted to object, then he had a very valid lawsuit in my jurisdiction. I've had clients sue over this before. We usually win. I am a Licensed Practicing Attorney; not trying to be a jerk or anything but the law simply does not side with you. This is a very very valid legal cause of action and has been since the days of jolly old England.

What doesn't make sense is the alternative: they can do whatever the hell they want with you....

Quote
Vis-a-vis informed consent, Congress was informed and congress consented.  Case closed.

How? No, they weren't. A congress of long ago created a law. The Fed complied with it.

This is insanely simple: "Hi guys, remember that law? In complying with it we're loaning out $7.7 Trillion. If we don't, we'll literally have another great depression." <---- This. This is what easily could've been given to Congress but was not. Did you see that video where they showed the guy on tape from the Fed and Treasury saying Congress wasn't told.

This is really simple, Congress was told if it was told. It was not told. Rather the Fed followed procedure without notice.

I am not saying it should not have been done necessarily. I'm saying that Congress, fully of idiots or not, should've been told so it could've been taken into consideration in future legislation like say:

The Dodd-Frank Reform Act.... <---- It would've really been a good argument for putting some regulations on these banks that they really do screw up sometimes.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 03:24:03 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

darkflagrance

  • Bay Watcher
  • Carry on, carry on
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2135 on: December 05, 2011, 04:39:18 pm »

So if I'm in a car accident and have severe injuries and am unconscious, and I am taken to the emergency room and treated and my life is saved but due to complications of the surgery I lose the ability to walk, and I wake up three days later and find this out, I can then proceed to sue on the basis that I would have refused the surgery knowing that I would not be able to walk afterwards and would rather have chanced the injuries)???
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 04:41:50 pm by darkflagrance »
Logged
...as if nothing really matters...
   
The Legend of Tholtig Cryptbrain: 8000 dead elves and a cyclops

Tired of going decades without goblin sieges? Try The Fortress Defense Mod

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2136 on: December 05, 2011, 04:46:53 pm »

So if I'm in a car accident and have severe injuries and am unconscious, and I am taken to the emergency room and treated and my life is saved but due to complications of the surgery I lose the ability to walk, and I wake up three days later and find this out, I can then proceed to sue on the basis that I would have refused the surgery knowing that I would not be able to walk afterwards and would rather have chanced the injuries)???

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on Truean here.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2137 on: December 05, 2011, 04:51:53 pm »

She said "reasonably expected to refuse"

Most people would accept losing the ability to walk, versus dying. So I don't think that would win.
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2138 on: December 05, 2011, 04:55:21 pm »

Unless, for example, the patient's livelihood depended on the ability to walk or similar.

Anyway, I think Truean means that the doctor is expecting the patient to be okay with the surgery, as opposed to the jury/judge (I don't know the legal procedures in the US) expecting it, in that the doctor is expecting the patient not to sue.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that was the impression I got.
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2139 on: December 05, 2011, 04:58:27 pm »

The unconscious stuff, you must have implied consent to what the reasonable patient would consent to if they were awake.

What I'm getting from this is that if the doctor believes that if the patient were awake and able to understand the consequences and possible outcomes of the procedure, he/she would consent to the procedure, and it turns out the patient would not, the patient can then sue.
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2140 on: December 05, 2011, 05:12:29 pm »

Also, I don't think you're allowed to take the consequences into account - its reasonably consent to the procedure, not the results. Otherwise lies madness.
Logged

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2141 on: December 05, 2011, 09:39:10 pm »

So if I'm in a car accident and have severe injuries and am unconscious, and I am taken to the emergency room and treated and my life is saved but due to complications of the surgery I lose the ability to walk, and I wake up three days later and find this out, I can then proceed to sue on the basis that I would have refused the surgery knowing that I would not be able to walk afterwards and would rather have chanced the injuries)???

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on Truean here.

???  Well if you think I just made up all that case law proving my point in the spoiler or just prefer wikipedia....

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Boy-dies-of-leukemia-after-refusing-treatment-for-1257094.php
Have you heard of Jehovah's Witnesses? What do you think happens if you just treat them anyhow? They sue you and win. The doctor can't force shit on you.... They can't force it on a kid if they are deemed a "mature minor" People chose to die instead of be treated. It happens.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You don't have to agree with it; you don't have to think it makes sense. We have laws and trials because we can't agree.

If you're looking for bright line rules. They don't exactly exist. This is where you have case law treating it out on an individual basis. You can make the argument and if the jury/judge believes you and you can site an old case supporting what you say.... Some cases are more clear cut than others. It depends on what the doctor does.
Why do you think hospitals have all those "informed consent" forms? Yes, there is an emergency exception but it is far from iron clad. If a jury later says that a "reasonable person" would've objected to it under the circumstances....
She said "reasonably expected to refuse"

Most people would accept losing the ability to walk, versus dying. So I don't think that would win.
Yeah, this car accident case is not a good case for that. If a jury doesn't buy it as "unreasonable," you don't win.

I've spelled stuff like this out before and broken the forum's 40K word limit. Simple, it ain't. Law varys from state to state, etc, standard disclaimer. I'm tired.

However, I've unintentionally lead us into a derail.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 10:45:27 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Send in the clowns
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2142 on: December 05, 2011, 10:46:39 pm »

I know this is only tangential to the topic, but for the record, you don't need consent to perform emergency care.

Actually... You do.
[See good Samaritan act]

The only time this is not applicable is if they're not capable of giving consent at the time, i.e. they're unconscious.
Er, well, I sort of took it as implicit.

But it goes beyond that, even. Back at uni, during medical law classes, we were presented with several practical cases. One of them went as follows: A man is diagnosed with AIDS, and decides to sign a "do not resucitate" document. A week later, he is struck by a car at a street crossing, and is taken to the hospital, where he gets reanimated and treated. He complains bitterly, and threatens to carry out a lawsuit. (here's where the teacher said "discuss", but for brevity's sake): it turns out that such papers apply only when the patient has a terminal condition. No matter what he has signed in the past, you have to perform emergency care and save his life (AKA: DNR vital testaments and the like can't be used like passive suicide conduits). Likewise, a JW who enters an ER unit can refuse blood transfusions, but if afterwards he passes out and requires a transfusion to live, you're bound to perform one.
Logged
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2143 on: December 05, 2011, 11:03:42 pm »

When medical law was presented to me (as a high school class on first aid, mind you) we were given the following scenario to explain consent law (I don't remember if it's a true story or not):

A man is sitting in a restaurant, and starts to choke on his food. An EMT medic happens to be eating lunch in this very same restaurant as this happens. The EMT walks over to the man and asks if he needs assistance. The man shakes his head and waves his hands in a manner to indicate "no". The EMT says, "Alright" and watches the man continue to choke on his food as the crowd looks on horrified. He tells them to wait a moment and stop freaking out. The man passes out and falls to the floor from oxygen loss, and the EMT immediately springs into action and clears his airway, saving his life. This is because as long as you are conscious and stable, you have direct control over your consent to medical treatment, but once you are not the legal implications immediately switch to implied consent. And the answer to implied consent is always "yes"; with the sole exception of prior arrangements such as Do Not Resuscitate orders under known and relevant circumstances.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2144 on: December 06, 2011, 12:22:34 am »

That is insane.

Luckily, the federal reserve does not act on the same standard.

Is unconciousness the only case where implied consent comes into play?  What if I'm drunk or in sufficient pain that answering questions is difficult?
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.
Pages: 1 ... 141 142 [143] 144 145 ... 297