D
DSOB
The link below is to a Chicago Sun-Times article dealing with a newly developed ring on an Edwards valve. As a civil defense attorney I have lots and lots of questions about the lawsuit, some of which might be seen as judgmental towards the doctor, others towards the patient, but none of which I have sufficient knowledge to even pose legitimately. I will therefore keep my mouth (or typing fingers acting as mouth) shut and be thought a fool rather than open my mouth and remove all doubt.
I would note that in Illinois a medical malpractice case cannot be filed until (in this case) a cardiac surgeon signs an affidavit saying the sued physician's patient care fell below reasonable medical standards. In this case not getting informed consent might be enough to get such an affidavit, even if there is insufficient evidence that this patient's result would have been better if a non-experimental valve/ring had been used. In other words, there may or may not be evidence that the valve/ring caused her subsequent medical problem, that isn't clear in this article.
I guess this stands for the proposition that as patients we should make sure we understand what doctors are telling us and opt for the treatment of our choice, not the physician's. Sure it takes a few minutes to explain the pros and cons of mechanical vs. biological valves, but I don't know of any surgeon who doesn't spend a couple of minutes doing that and making their recommendation if the patient hasn't already decided which to get. I doubt it would take much more time to point out the valve you are using is in a trial phase, and to explain why the physician feels it would be better for the patient to use the new valve.
Having said that, once the mechanical vs. decision has been made, how many first time OHS patients has debated model numbers and manufacturers with the surgeon? I certainly didn't know anything about models, though i knew what type of valve I didn't want because of my lifestyle prior to our having the discussion.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=242828&src=143
I would note that in Illinois a medical malpractice case cannot be filed until (in this case) a cardiac surgeon signs an affidavit saying the sued physician's patient care fell below reasonable medical standards. In this case not getting informed consent might be enough to get such an affidavit, even if there is insufficient evidence that this patient's result would have been better if a non-experimental valve/ring had been used. In other words, there may or may not be evidence that the valve/ring caused her subsequent medical problem, that isn't clear in this article.
I guess this stands for the proposition that as patients we should make sure we understand what doctors are telling us and opt for the treatment of our choice, not the physician's. Sure it takes a few minutes to explain the pros and cons of mechanical vs. biological valves, but I don't know of any surgeon who doesn't spend a couple of minutes doing that and making their recommendation if the patient hasn't already decided which to get. I doubt it would take much more time to point out the valve you are using is in a trial phase, and to explain why the physician feels it would be better for the patient to use the new valve.
Having said that, once the mechanical vs. decision has been made, how many first time OHS patients has debated model numbers and manufacturers with the surgeon? I certainly didn't know anything about models, though i knew what type of valve I didn't want because of my lifestyle prior to our having the discussion.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=242828&src=143