| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2012 07:47:50 PM · #1151 |
| Yes, doing a tubal after a c-section is common because you are already inside the pelvic cavity. Most of the risk for the patient has already been bundled into the c-section. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:49:02 PM · #1152 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Not all religious people should be viewed in a bad light, but there are times when the message that some convey really makes one wonder about the goodness that they would have us associate with their beliefs.
Ray |
Bumper sticker:Lord Protect Me
From Your
Adherents |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 08:05:26 PM · #1153 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)?
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 20:07:23. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 08:30:21 PM · #1154 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
You seem to be misunderstanding. There was no risk to my child from this procedure. It would have been and was performed following delivery. The risks to my son and myself was the result of the complications I was having from being pregnant. I wasn't going through that again, whether he made it or not. They were afraid to do the procedure because they thought if he didn't make it I would regret not being able to have another child.
eta: And btw - I requested the procedure when I first found out I was pregnant. It is understood that it's done after delivery. And I expect an apology for the crack about me not caring about what happened to my son.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 20:35:04. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 08:45:22 PM · #1155 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Stand on a street corner some day and ask 100 women if their husbands do their 50% share. |
The problem now is if you ask 100 women, most won't have husbands in the first place. Safe sex doesn't exist. Sex produces fatherless children. Sons who don't have a father to teach them to be a man. Daughters who have no father to love them.
I feel sorry for this and the next generation that have grown up with fatherless families. |
So we should stop sending our men off to war, then? That causes a lot of fatherless homes.
"World War II subjected the nation's families to severe strain. During the war, one-sixth of the nation's families suffered prolonged separation from sons or fathers. Five million "war widows" had to cook, clean, launder, and care for children alone."
Ironically, this was the 'Greatest Generation'!
Perhaps focusing on building a culture of peace and war-avoidance is a better goal than trying to get people to stop having sex.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 20:50:47. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 08:54:04 PM · #1156 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Kelli was not trying to have a tubal ligation BEFORE her child was born, but AFTER. Did you really think that? When a woman is split open from 6 to 10 inches across her abdomen after having a C-Section, it is an easy procedure to tie off the tubes. If she had a vaginal delivery, it would have been a slightly different procedure. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:13:49 PM · #1157 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
You seem to be misunderstanding. There was no risk to my child from this procedure. It would have been and was performed following delivery. The risks to my son and myself was the result of the complications I was having from being pregnant. I wasn't going through that again, whether he made it or not. They were afraid to do the procedure because they thought if he didn't make it I would regret not being able to have another child.
eta: And btw - I requested the procedure when I first found out I was pregnant. It is understood that it's done after delivery. And I expect an apology for the crack about me not caring about what happened to my son. |
I'm not saying you did. The reason why I even asked is because of what you said earlier, which made it seem like you didn't care about the risks:
Originally posted by Kelli:
When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. |
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:15:01 PM · #1158 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
As bad as that sounds, the local hospital here wouldn't perform the procedure at all even after a c-section and regardless of age or number of children... because it's Catholic. If the woman is at medical risk, well that's just too bad for her. Welcome to 13th century medicine. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:17:52 PM · #1159 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The reason why I even asked is because of what you said earlier, which made it seem like you didn't care about the risks |
Read it again. The "risk" was not that it would endanger her son's health, but that she wouldn't meet the two baby quota if he didn't make it. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:21:48 PM · #1160 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
You seem to be misunderstanding. There was no risk to my child from this procedure. It would have been and was performed following delivery. The risks to my son and myself was the result of the complications I was having from being pregnant. I wasn't going through that again, whether he made it or not. They were afraid to do the procedure because they thought if he didn't make it I would regret not being able to have another child.
eta: And btw - I requested the procedure when I first found out I was pregnant. It is understood that it's done after delivery. And I expect an apology for the crack about me not caring about what happened to my son. |
I'm not saying you did. The reason why I even asked is because of what you said earlier, which made it seem like you didn't care about the risks:
Originally posted by Kelli:
When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. |
|
They were refusing because they thought I'd want to have another child if he didn't make it. They weren't refusing because it was a risk to him to have the surgery. What I was stating was that I wasn't worried about not having another child. We're all grown ups here. I just assumed everyone would actually have at least a general understanding of the female anatomy and how this all works. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:26:55 PM · #1161 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by yanko:
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Kelli was not trying to have a tubal ligation BEFORE her child was born, but AFTER. Did you really think that? When a woman is split open from 6 to 10 inches across her abdomen after having a C-Section, it is an easy procedure to tie off the tubes. If she had a vaginal delivery, it would have been a slightly different procedure. |
No. I figured it would be done while she was already open. Rather than belabor the point I'll just let it drop. I should have just ignored the story altogether rather than ask about it, especially since it has nothing to do with what we had been talking about (i.e. adoption). |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:27:21 PM · #1162 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You seem to be misunderstanding. |
Isn't that pretty much the crux of the issue ...? |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:28:57 PM · #1163 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
You seem to be misunderstanding. There was no risk to my child from this procedure. It would have been and was performed following delivery. The risks to my son and myself was the result of the complications I was having from being pregnant. I wasn't going through that again, whether he made it or not. They were afraid to do the procedure because they thought if he didn't make it I would regret not being able to have another child.
eta: And btw - I requested the procedure when I first found out I was pregnant. It is understood that it's done after delivery. And I expect an apology for the crack about me not caring about what happened to my son. |
I'm not saying you did. The reason why I even asked is because of what you said earlier, which made it seem like you didn't care about the risks:
Originally posted by Kelli:
When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. |
|
They were refusing because they thought I'd want to have another child if he didn't make it. They weren't refusing because it was a risk to him to have the surgery. What I was stating was that I wasn't worried about not having another child. We're all grown ups here. I just assumed everyone would actually have at least a general understanding of the female anatomy and how this all works. |
Ok Kelli. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:36:41 PM · #1164 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
The reason why I even asked is because of what you said earlier, which made it seem like you didn't care about the risks |
Read it again. The "risk" was not that it would endanger her son's health, but that she wouldn't meet the two baby quota if he didn't make it. |
Kelli just said the same thing. So even at 35 she still had to meet the two baby quota and that was the thing at risk. I get it now. Thanks. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 09:46:56 PM · #1165 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by yanko:
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Kelli was not trying to have a tubal ligation BEFORE her child was born, but AFTER. Did you really think that? When a woman is split open from 6 to 10 inches across her abdomen after having a C-Section, it is an easy procedure to tie off the tubes. If she had a vaginal delivery, it would have been a slightly different procedure. |
No. I figured it would be done while she was already open. Rather than belabor the point I'll just let it drop. I should have just ignored the story altogether rather than ask about it, especially since it has nothing to do with what we had been talking about (i.e. adoption). |
In a roundabout way it does have to do with adoption. My husband's cousin and her husband had 1 child, decided to not have any more of their own, and adopted 2 children. Not many people are willing to do that. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 10:21:47 PM · #1166 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by yanko:
So you thought they were only doing that because they didn't want you to have your tubes tied and not because of some risk to your son? Or did you just not care what happened to your son? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about a fairly developed fetus, one that can and was able to be delivered when you requested the procedure? In hindsight are you glad that you didn't take the risk (assuming it was a real one)? |
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Kelli was not trying to have a tubal ligation BEFORE her child was born, but AFTER. Did you really think that? When a woman is split open from 6 to 10 inches across her abdomen after having a C-Section, it is an easy procedure to tie off the tubes. If she had a vaginal delivery, it would have been a slightly different procedure. |
No. I figured it would be done while she was already open. Rather than belabor the point I'll just let it drop. I should have just ignored the story altogether rather than ask about it, especially since it has nothing to do with what we had been talking about (i.e. adoption). |
In a roundabout way it does have to do with adoption. My husband's cousin and her husband had 1 child, decided to not have any more of their own, and adopted 2 children. Not many people are willing to do that. |
It is all related. The "right" is trying to take away choices. All choices. They are trying to make abortion illegal and take away birth control. All those children that will result will either be placed into the adoption process, when there are already not enough homes for the children waiting, or be raised by people that do not want them. I never questioned the "rules" quoted to me by that doctor all those years ago until this very conversation when someone asked. It felt like I got hit by a ton of bricks when I went looking for answers on the internet. There was no internet back then. I didn't personally know any lawyers. I believed the doctor. The thing is, it's still going on. Doctors are still making those choices for women. Google the search terms tubal ligation with doctor refusal. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 10:27:41 PM · #1167 |
Originally posted by Steve Brown:
Stability: n. Facing the same contradictions year after year. |
For some first-class entertainment, I suggest everyone pause and read this thread ...
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
Men stronger? Perhaps as a general rule in everyday strength. Ahhh, but what I want to see is a man deliver something the size of a small watermelon through an orifice that is, well, not that big. THEN I will concur that men are stronger.
hahahah ;-) |
For your further entertainment I suggest you research the birthing practices of the Huichol tribe of Mexico.* |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
Something I heard recently: "Behind every great man is a truly astonished woman."
Ursula |
"Behind every great woman is herself."
Men seem genetically determined to start arguments over pointless topics, eventually leading to war and worldwide devestation. Women seemed inclined to feed people and try and keep them healthy.
If men had not been physically stronger and able to subjugate women through threat of brute force I think our history/civilization would be quite different. |
*Really! -- if universally adopted I have no doubt this would change the world perspective on contraception and (early-term) abortion ... |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 12:06:52 AM · #1168 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Doctors are still making those choices for women. Google the search terms tubal ligation with doctor refusal. |
Let's just be straight here. The doctor is under no compulsion to do what you want. If they are under the impression that you are the type of person to "sue the shit out of them" if something goes wrong (which, apparently, you are) they are welcome to say, "I'm not touching you with a ten foot pole." I'd say they normally would have the obligation to refer you to someone else, but why would they want to do another professional the disservice of moving that kind of risk upon them? If you were my patient I would have terminated your care (for both our sakes since the relationship was obviously dysfunctional) and referred you to the phone book. |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 12:22:24 AM · #1169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Doctors are still making those choices for women. Google the search terms tubal ligation with doctor refusal. |
Let's just be straight here. The doctor is under no compulsion to do what you want. If they are under the impression that you are the type of person to "sue the shit out of them" if something goes wrong (which, apparently, you are) they are welcome to say, "I'm not touching you with a ten foot pole." I'd say they normally would have the obligation to refer you to someone else, but why would they want to do another professional the disservice of moving that kind of risk upon them? If you were my patient I would have terminated your care (for both our sakes since the relationship was obviously dysfunctional) and referred you to the phone book. |
This is ridiculous. She didn't say she was going to sue them "if something goes wrong." She said she would sue them because they were not going to honor their agreement: "What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes"... "They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks."... "The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery." It's not as though she had a choice to get up and find another doctor right before they performed an emergency C-section. She wanted it over and done with, for crying out loud! |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 12:35:07 AM · #1170 |
The point is that any patient that threatens to sue to doctor is dangerous to the doctor and the relationship is dyfunctional. Of course you can't just let her go in the middle of a c-section. I'm just saying in general. It strikes me as strange that Kelli felt that the only thing keeping her doctor from NOT doing the tubal was her threatened lawsuit. I'm sure that was anything but the case.
It doesn't matter. We all know Kelli is a spitfire and we all deal with patients like her. On rant I love her for it, but in a doctor-patient relationship, it's just sorta tiring and weird. |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 12:38:39 AM · #1171 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you were my patient I would have terminated your care (for both our sakes since the relationship was obviously dysfunctional) and referred you to the phone book. |
This is ridiculous... |
Hey, let's not get too carried away here. If she were Jason's patient, we'd be talking about an allergist practicing obstetrics and referring a woman in active labor to the phone book. I'd say fear of a lawsuit would be well justified. |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 01:43:59 AM · #1172 |
Yes, that would be a bit of a mess, eh? :)
I should say I'm not defending the doctor. The days of paternalistic medicine are behind us. Giving the patient proper informed consent and then allowing them to make their choices is the only right thing to do. If the doctor cannot or will not perform the service, then it should be explained as such.
I was just trying to see things through the doctor's eyes. |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 07:14:02 AM · #1173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is that any patient that threatens to sue to doctor is dangerous to the doctor and the relationship is dyfunctional. Of course you can't just let her go in the middle of a c-section. I'm just saying in general. It strikes me as strange that Kelli felt that the only thing keeping her doctor from NOT doing the tubal was her threatened lawsuit. I'm sure that was anything but the case.
It doesn't matter. We all know Kelli is a spitfire and we all deal with patients like her. On rant I love her for it, but in a doctor-patient relationship, it's just sorta tiring and weird. |
Just for the record. After being refused two other times, and being threatened to be refused a third, I was at the end of my rope. My blood pressure at that point was 270 over 180! I ended up in ICU. I almost died, and my child almost died. My hospital stay for that delivery was 8 days. I'm the calmest, sweetest person in the world, with all the patience to go with it. But push me too far, and look out.
And after it was all said and done, I'm the one that severed that doctor/patient relationship. I'd had enough.
Also for the record. I'm really not sue happy. If you're interested, I'll pm you the story about my second heart attack, which at least two doctors were fired over. The one that put me on permanent disability. The one I didn't sue anybody for though I had a team of doctors urging me to. (For the record, I've never sued anyone for anything at anytime.)
Message edited by author 2012-05-04 07:53:27. |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 11:06:17 AM · #1174 |
| We luv ya Kelli. I'm sorry you have had more than your share of health concerns! |
|
|
|
05/04/2012 12:33:23 PM · #1175 |
So when a doctor refuses to honor an existing contract DURING emergency healthcare, despite your repeated, forceful expression of your continued desire for a procedure that should have already been performed years ago, one which, if it HAD been performed, would have prevented the very situation you find yourself in today, you should do...
What? Write a stern review on Yelp?
Claims that the paternalistic days of healthcare are over are completely voided by the FACT that this is a paternalistic healthcare situation we're discussing. That is the very definition of 'not over'.
|
|
