Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#113,201
#113,201
Rasputin_Vol said:
You're not helping your case. You're pointing out yet another layer between patients and treatment that is unnecessary.

Also, the guy was on a ventilator for a while and then placed in a medically induced coma. I'm sure insurance and hospital bills were racking up. Now we are saying that moving this guy in the condition he's in to another facility that is "out of system". That is more reasonable than keeping him where he is and allowing this other doctor to throw a Hail Mary on this experimental medicine? The wife even offered to sign a waiver...
Click to expand...
It’s more complicated than that. Much like in the law and police thread you complain about things you don’t like but don’t grasp why the laws and regulations are the way they are. The family at any time can check him out and transfer him, but no attending hospital physician will allow some other one to come and administer a medication against their decision making. The insurance wouldn’t cover it, the family could sue even with a waiver when the patient dies or has complications, and there would be a federal penalty with CMS that likely could jeopardize the hospital’s accreditation. That’s on top of the fact that the attending physician’s license could have issues with a bad outcome.
it’s the same reason we wouldn’t let a “natural healing” physician come to the ICU with home meds, or incense or leaches to bloodlet. Just because a family member wants something doesn’t mean they get it
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#113,202
#113,202
Rickyvol77 said:
It’s more complicated than that. Much like in the law and police thread you complain about things you don’t like but don’t grasp why the laws and regulations are the way they are. The family at any time can check him out and transfer him, but no attending hospital physician will allow some other one to come and administer a medication against their decision making. The insurance wouldn’t cover it, the family could sue even with a waiver when the patient dies or has complications, and there would be a federal penalty with CMS that likely could jeopardize the hospital’s accreditation. That’s on top of the fact that the attending physician’s license could have issues with a bad outcome.
it’s the same reason we wouldn’t let a “natural healing” physician come to the ICU with home meds, or incense or leaches to bloodlet. Just because a family member wants something doesn’t mean they get it
Click to expand...
I can't think of any person I've seen post on here that is so set in concrete that the rules are the rules and nobody shall deviate one micron from the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#113,203
#113,203
Rickyvol77 said:
It’s more complicated than that. Much like in the law and police thread you complain about things you don’t like but don’t grasp why the laws and regulations are the way they are. The family at any time can check him out and transfer him, but no attending hospital physician will allow some other one to come and administer a medication against their decision making. The insurance wouldn’t cover it, the family could sue even with a waiver when the patient dies or has complications, and there would be a federal penalty with CMS that likely could jeopardize the hospital’s accreditation. That’s on top of the fact that the attending physician’s license could have issues with a bad outcome.
it’s the same reason we wouldn’t let a “natural healing” physician come to the ICU with home meds, or incense or leaches to bloodlet. Just because a family member wants something doesn’t mean they get it
Click to expand...
And I just went over how impractical that possibly is given his medical condition at the time and the possibility that they may have insurance issues going to another hospital or finding a hospital that could treat them within the region.

You're downplaying all of the logistics and possible insurance issues that may come up trying to find and/or move to an alternate hospital under those conditions.
 
#113,204
#113,204
VolStrom said:
I can't think of any person I've seen post on here that is so set in concrete that the rules are the rules and nobody shall deviate one micron from the rules.
Click to expand...
Not true. A lot of rules have leeway and discretion. The problem is when you have people who just use emotional arguments about why they “feel” a rule is unfair without having any real world understanding or experience of said issue and rules. Yea a hospital could “bend the rules” to allow any kook to give their patients unauthorized treatment, but a multi million dollar lawsuit, a $1 million dollar federal fine or the shutdown of your whole entire hospital system over it seems like a stupid decision wouldn’t it
 
#113,205
#113,205
Rickyvol77 said:
It’s more complicated than that. Much like in the law and police thread you complain about things you don’t like but don’t grasp why the laws and regulations are the way they are. The family at any time can check him out and transfer him, but no attending hospital physician will allow some other one to come and administer a medication against their decision making. The insurance wouldn’t cover it, the family could sue even with a waiver when the patient dies or has complications, and there would be a federal penalty with CMS that likely could jeopardize the hospital’s accreditation. That’s on top of the fact that the attending physician’s license could have issues with a bad outcome.
it’s the same reason we wouldn’t let a “natural healing” physician come to the ICU with home meds, or incense or leaches to bloodlet. Just because a family member wants something doesn’t mean they get it
Click to expand...
The lawyers again...
 
#113,206
#113,206
Rickyvol77 said:
Not true. A lot of rules have leeway and discretion. The problem is when you have people who just use emotional arguments about why they “feel” a rule is unfair without having any real world understanding or experience of said issue and rules. Yea a hospital could “bend the rules” to allow any kook to give their patients unauthorized treatment, but a multi million dollar lawsuit, a $1 million dollar federal fine or the shutdown of your whole entire hospital system over it seems like a stupid decision wouldn’t it
Click to expand...
It is an emotional argument in this extreme case. The man was dying.

So you're telling me we can throw caution to the wind when we want to jab perfectly healthy people with an experimental treatment, but we now have to worry about liability and the ambulance chasers when people are on their death beds?

COVID-19 patient whose wife sued for ivermectin treatment dies, attorney says
 
#113,207
#113,207
Rasputin_Vol said:
And I just went over how impractical that possibly is given his medical condition at the time and the possibility that they may have insurance issues going to another hospital or finding a hospital that could treat them within the region.

You're downplaying all of the logistics and possible insurance issues that may come up trying to find and/or move to an alternate hospital under those conditions.
Click to expand...
People do it at hospitals everyday. Demand transfer to somewhere else, leave AMA, leave and go home. It’s normal part of being a hospital.
There are also family members who get arrested for assisting the self medication of patients by bringing them “extra pain meds” and such. And also patients who get administratively discharged for violating the patient care plan even over drinking water before surgery or eating candy when it can kill them
 
#113,210
#113,210
Rickyvol77 said:
People do it at hospitals everyday. Demand transfer to somewhere else, leave AMA, leave and go home. It’s normal part of being a hospital.
There are also family members who get arrested for assisting the self medication of patients by bringing them “extra pain meds” and such. And also patients who get administratively discharged for violating the patient care plan even over drinking water before surgery or eating candy when it can kill them
Click to expand...
Trigger warning. I had outpatient surgery last month and guess what? I drank water the night and the morning before and "nothing" happened when I lied about it even though they gave me strict "rules" that were highlighted, bolded and underlined.
 
#113,211
#113,211
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is an emotional argument in this extreme case. The man was dying.

So you're telling me we can throw caution to the wind when we want to jab perfectly healthy people with an experimental treatment, but we now have to worry about liability and the ambulance chasers when people are on their death beds?

COVID-19 patient whose wife sued for ivermectin treatment dies, attorney says
Click to expand...
Who is throwing caution to the wind? These hospital protocols have been a concrete part of EMTALA and it’s predecessors for 20 plus years
 
#113,212
#113,212
VolStrom said:
Trigger warning. I had outpatient surgery last month and guess what? I drank water the night and the morning before and "nothing" happened when I lied about it even though they gave me strict "rules" that were highlighted, bolded and underlined.
Click to expand...
Ok and that was your choice to put yourself with a chance for negative outcome of surgery. You lied about it because you knew they wouldn’t do the surgery. Shows mostly of your character and lack of understanding to why you don’t do certain things
 
#113,214
#113,214
Rickyvol77 said:
People do it at hospitals everyday. Demand transfer to somewhere else, leave AMA, leave and go home. It’s normal part of being a hospital.
There are also family members who get arrested for assisting the self medication of patients by bringing them “extra pain meds” and such. And also patients who get administratively discharged for violating the patient care plan even over drinking water before surgery or eating candy when it can kill them
Click to expand...
And you still downplay the situation.

Do we know if there was another facility in the area that would have allowed the treatment? What about insurance coverage? You've got several things in play here.
 
#113,217
#113,217
Rasputin_Vol said:
And you still downplay the situation.

Do we know if there was another facility in the area that would have allowed the treatment? What about insurance coverage? You've got several things in play here.
Click to expand...
Yes he does, and he doesn't like anyone from Volnation to question his authority.
 
#113,218
#113,218
Rasputin_Vol said:
And you still downplay the situation.

Do we know if there was another facility in the area that would have allowed the treatment? What about insurance coverage? You've got several things in play here.
Click to expand...
And you still downplay that a hospital visit is an agreement to which the patient agrees to follow the admitting and attending physicians patient care plans. They can chose to follow all of it or none of it but the hospital has the right to administer the treatment as the physicians allow. If the family has an issue or disagreement they can take it up with hospital admin or ethics teams but if the hospital is in complete agreement with the physician’s assessment, they will not allow some other person to violate the plan but to especially not administer medications. I don’t care if it’s a damn Tylenol, that’s too much risk and violations of EMTALA and federal regulations, regardless of the civil lawsuit risk of it

No hospital would allow that
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#113,219
#113,219
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm not supporting mandates on anything. I'm pointing out roadblocks that have been put in place to slowdown or halt individuals from taking their medical decisions in their own hands. I've told you before about the troubles the people I know had in West Tennessee getting Ivermectin. It easy to say "just get a new doctor/pharmacist" in a metro area. There are convenient choices available within a reasonable distance. But when you are having to go from Huntingdon/Camden area to Chattanooga to get a prescription filled because of all of these roadblocks, that is a problem. When others are unable (or unaware) of these other options, they are forced to improvise. And when you are in a hospital bed and waiting to die, at that point, it isn't about a doctor's right to treat. It is about that patient's right to try whatever measures they can to save their life. The doctor doesn't have a right to deny anyone a particular treatment because of their beliefs. That patient should be able to have all medical treatments made available to them.

Lastly, these "roadblocks"... I find it odd/curious that we have so much resistance on what many would call experimental treatments that go outside of the approved narrative, yet we are more than willing to inject jabs that are equally (if not more) dubious and experimental. That is problem. Why is one experimental path left wide open, but these other alternatives closed? Especially when most of these people standing in the way know "the chances of harm are very small" for using these alternatives.
Click to expand...

No mandates.
No mandate to write/prescribe/fill ivermectin.
in your opinion the risk is small. And while I and my Dr agree we don’t get to decide that for all Drs.
You have the right to find a new Dr.
You want to force people to do things they’re concerned about because you’re not. And that’s just as wrong as a mask mandate
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, LouderVol and volfanhill
#113,222
#113,222
VolStrom said:
Yes he does, and he doesn't like anyone from Volnation to question his authority.
Click to expand...
Authority? 😂😂😂 you mean actual knowledge of how the hospital healthcare systems operate, how the laws and federal regulations operate, and how general business and procedures are conducted in both healthcare and law enforcement?
meanwhile a guy who doesn’t even understand the physical risks he put himself in before surgery and had to lie about it to his doctor is the one we should listen to on what he “feels” should happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#113,223
#113,223
Orangeslice13 said:
No mandates.
No mandate to write/prescribe/fill ivermectin.
in your opinion the risk is small. And while I and my Dr agree we don’t get to decide that for all Drs.
You have the right to find a new Dr.
You want to force people to do things they’re concerned about because you’re not. And that’s just as wrong as a mask mandate
Click to expand...
If a man is dying, what is the risk (outside of the lawyers)? And I'm not saying "force". The patients should already have that option.
 
#113,225
#113,225
Rickyvol77 said:
Authority? 😂😂😂 you mean actual knowledge of how the hospital healthcare systems operate, how the laws and federal regulations operate, and how general business and procedures are conducted in both healthcare and law enforcement?
meanwhile a guy who doesn’t even understand the physical risks he put himself in before surgery and had to lie about it to his doctor is the one we should listen to on what he “feels” should happen
Click to expand...
The law
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top