Does Distorting Facts Really Serve A Higher Purpose?
If there was ever a needless tragedy, certainly the case of Mychelle Williams was just that. For those of you who have seen Sicko, no doubt you were moved by her story. You had to be. I doubt even the most heartless among us could walk away from that story without feeling a sense of loss. No one in Moore’s film deserves more empathy than Dawnelle Keys, Mychelle’s mother. It’s a sad fact of life that we are all destined to lose loved ones somewhere along the way, but there’s something about the death of a child that transcends all other losses. Even years after Mychelle died, you can still see sorrow in Dawnelle Keys.
I suppose Michael Moore has done more despicable things in his life than to misrepresent the Mychelle Williams story in Sicko, but I’ll be damn if I can think of one. For those people who continue to support the concept that Mike exaggerates or distorts facts for a higher purpose, try to justisfy this one. This is the real story of Mychelle Williams.
In May of 1993, Ms. Keys (whose name was Dawnelle Barris at the time) picked up her 18-month old daughter, Mychelle Williams, from day care. She went directly to her mother’s house where she left Mychelle so she could run errands. When she returned, her daughter was ill. Keys, a trained paramedic, soon realized how sick Mychelle was and called an ambulance. Her temperature was about 104 degrees F. Mychelle was transported to the nearest hospital, Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. There, Dr. Trach Phoung Dang attended her giving the child intravenous liquids for dehydration and medication to reduce her fever which had soared to 106.6 degrees F. Dr. Dang correctly suspected Sepsis, which is a very serious condition requiring immediate treatment with antibiotics, was the cause of the child’s illness. He also knew the risk of death is high with this condition.
Over the course of the next two and a half hours, Mychelle’s condition worsened . . . to the point she had a seizure. Meanwhile, Dawnelle Keys became so upset with the situation, security staff had to escort her from King/Drew Hospital. Finally, after almost 4 hours of delay, Mychelle was transported to another hospital owned and operated by Kaiser. She died a few minutes after arrival.
Some of you familiar with this story will wonder why I failed to mention that this family was insured by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and why I failed to mention Kaiser allegedly denied payment for the tests and antibiotics necessary to treat Mychelle. There are two reasons for this omission. First, Kaiser did not deny coverage for medical treatment. Second, it was the responsibility of King/Drew to run those test and administer antibiotics if necessary regardless of consideration of payment. Why? Because there was a strong indication that Mychelle’s condition was due to Sepsis.
There is a Federal Law in this country that no one can be denied treatment at any emergency room, even if they cannot pay. It’s called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA for short (Section 1395dd, title 42 of the U.S. Code) which clearly states that no hospital can “dump” a patient in need of treatment. That’s exactly why a court ruled against the County of Los Angeles who owns King/Drew Hospital. They did not provide medical treatment necessary to assure, within reasonable probability, that no material deterioration of Mychelle’s condition was likely to result from or occur during the transfer of a patient to another hospital.
Simply put, King/Drew hospital should have run the test necessary to confirm or rule out Dr. Dang’s suspicions of Sepsis. By waiting, Mychelle passed the critical point of no return. It did not matter what health care insurance plan she had, nor did it matter what conditions that plan placed on members. Mychelle Williams was under their care, and it was their responsibility to treat her.
This is a case of medical malpractice . . . period . . . end of story. That is exactly what the court said. The responsibility assigned by the court for compensation was 75% King/Drew Hospital, a government run institution, and 25% Kaiser’s hospital, not the Kaiser Permanente Hospital Plan as Moore would have you believe. The proof is in the documents of a ruling by the Supreme Court of California, that being Dawnelle Barris versus the County of Los Angeles.
I have yet to figure out what higher purpose Moore’s distortion of these facts serves. If he’s trying to discredit HMOs by bringing up a case of government medical malpractice, he just shot himself in the foot. How is this going to improve our health care system? And how in the world does any of this justify lying about a small child’s tragic death?
I suppose Mike thinks we should model our health care system on a hospital owned and operated by Los Angeles County, namely King/Drew. After all, Moore thinks it’s for the greater good, you know.
P.S. This comes from Merck’s online medical library:
Sepsis is very serious, and the risk of death is high. Sepsis requires immediate treatment with antibiotics—even if test results confirming the diagnosis are not yet available.
Update by JimK:
I don’t want to lessen this amazing post by adding too much to it, but I thought that people would like to see a summary of the legal decision. It’s fairly obvious at this point that Moore doesn’t want you to know the full details of this case, as they actually refute his position that the government should be in charge of your health and your life. King/Drew violated section 1395dd of title 42 of the United States Code, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, when they decided to acquiesce to Kaiser’s request not to do the blood tests immediately. This was not a case of mismanagement. The Kaiser doctor was not on the scene and should not have been taken as the last word in medical care. Especially when accepting his over-the-phone instructions violated the law. This was medical malpractice, from a government-run hospital.
Comments
Fantastic deconstruction! When i worked in a trauma pratice, we were always under pressure from HMOs to move patients - and Kaiser was bad. But we understood that it was our responsibility, that it was illegal to move a patient until he was stable, no matter what the insurance company said.
One other thing I’ll post on after I’ve seen the movie. An insurance company denying payment is not final and does not automatically mean that the patient is responsible. All companies have appeals processes. And if a provider is denied payment and is a participating physician, they can not turn around and bill the patient.
Common misconceptions.
This tragedy was mostly the fault of an irresponsible hospital. I can’t stand HMOs, but it’s stupid to blame them for malpractice.
Here’s an interesting article about the case of Mychelle Williams…
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/nw/?postId=307
Some things that I found interesting were that the doctor was taped by Kaiser, and the court ordered them to produce the tapes. In the tapes Dr. Dang suggests to the Kaiser Hospital Doctor, Dr. Brian Thompson, that he should do the tests THREE times. Dr. Brian Thompson insisted that the tests could be done at the Kaiser Hospital.
My take on it is, that if the tests WERE done then the results would have shown they were WRONG and further tests could have been done, and the little girl might have survived.
Yes the first hospital is ultimately responsible for her death, she should have gotten proper medical treatment THEN AND THERE. The TRUE villain is still the almighty dollar IMO, and the fact that the medical system in the US is PROFIT driven, instead of NEED driven.
Lastly, on a side note, it states in the article that the jury found the hospitals both responsible, and placed a value of $1.3 million, but the judge capped it at $250,000 as the law states. Sad that a profit driven hospital can make such a devastating mistake and be able to so easily pay for it through an enabling government that caps lawsuits, hurting those people with JUSTIFIED claims.
IMO
Posted by JOttley on 07/09/2007 at 11:31 AM (Link to this comment | )
Yes the first hospital is ultimately responsible for her death, she should have gotten proper medical treatment THEN AND THERE. The TRUE villain is still the almighty dollar IMO, and the fact that the medical system in the US is PROFIT driven, instead of NEED driven.
I think your hearing what you want to hear. It was just argued this was a public hospital. Do you have any facts to argue against that claim?
Of course, no one in a UK hospital could ever die of Sepsis, because they are not PROFIT driven, and instead NEED driven.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060608090953.htm
But as we know the hospital where Mychelle was a puplic NOT FOR PROFIT hospital, but hey who needs facts when you have Moore to tell you what to think.
My point is that the health care system in the US is profit driven, not specifically the Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The fact that this IS a public hospital and that it’s in such sorry state seems to support my argument. The health care system in the US is PROFIT driven, the hospitals that HAVE more money (private) get the best of EVERYTHING. Better equipment, better staff, better management, and better clientele to pay for it…
Want some proof? Read about the Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.-Harbor_Hospital
It’s in a BAD state, even today.
I already know his whole point will be Kaiser said to move her.... but professionals and doctors need to do what they think is right vs what others tell them. Its why the public hospital was 75% at fault… they could have… and should have.. done things differently.
Posted by JOttley on 07/09/2007 at 12:06 PM (Link to this comment | )
My point is that the health care system in the US is profit driven, not specifically the Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center.
Right, but your point wasn’t really relavant in this case.
Also, so, if private hostpitals have better stuff.... why.... would we want to make them all public?
Bascially, you don’t have a point other than a personal prejudice against the free market system… I got that point....
The fact that this IS a public hospital and that it’s in such sorry state seems to support my argument. The health care system in the US is PROFIT driven, the hospitals that HAVE more money (private) get the best of EVERYTHING. Better equipment, better staff, better management, and better clientele to pay for it…
The Mayo Clinic is a not-for-profit medical care system regarded as one of the best in the nation/world.
You don’t have to be profit-driven to be a private system, nor to be the best in the world. But you do make a good point about private hospitals being typically better than public ones. Thanks for that hand up.
My point is that the health care system in the US is profit driven, not specifically the Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The fact that this IS a public hospital and that it’s in such sorry state seems to support my argument. The health care system in the US is PROFIT driven, the hospitals that HAVE more money (private) get the best of EVERYTHING. Better equipment, better staff, better management, and better clientele to pay for it…
Hmmm, just maybe that’s why so many of us are against making all health care public.
Or maybe it was just plain old bureaucratic mismanagement, that never happens to government run organizations. Oh wait ...
Also, the government owes trillions-with-a-t in public held debt. If being profit-driven is bad, do you want to turn the system over to an organization that needs to make TRILLIONS (not billions, but TRILLIONS) of dollars in profit in order to balance their books?
Jottley, why are you intentionally trying to both ignore the facts and change the subject?
The PUBLIC hospital (i.e. not profit-driven) is responsible for choosing not to treat an acute problem with a patient. It directly contradicts your contention that publicly funded health care would be better. In this case, it absolutely, without question, was not.
The fact that the place is still to this day a mess further disproves your point and proves ours - Government run health care is a disaster in the US.
Government health care in the US is a disaster.
IMO because you can’t have two tier health systems. It needs to be one way or the other TOTALLY.
The public system in Canada works MUCH better than the system in the US. Yes there are problems, but EVERYONE gets medical treatment.
As for the facts, Dr. Dang asked THREE times for permission to test from Dr. Brian Thompson, the Kaiser representative. Dr. Brian Thompson said three times that the tests could be done at a KAISER facility. The courts found that the original hospital was u responsible, and Dr. Brian Thompson was responsible. Dr. Brian Thompson is a KAISER employee following KAISER protcols. To say that there was no responsibility on KAISER is confusing to me.
If Dr. Brian Thompson had said go ahead and do the test, this WHOLE story would be mute.
The public system in Canada works MUCH better than the system in the US. Yes there are problems, but EVERYONE gets medical treatment.
Nope never been any ever who hasn’t gotten treatment in Canada. Sure and I have unicorns living in my backyard.
As for the facts, Dr. Dang asked THREE times for permission to test from Dr. Brian Thompson, the Kaiser representative. Dr. Brian Thompson said three times that the tests could be done at a KAISER facility. The courts found that the original hospital was u responsible, and Dr. Brian Thompson was responsible. Dr. Brian Thompson is a KAISER employee following KAISER protcols. To say that there was no responsibility on KAISER is confusing to me.
Under US law, Dr. Dang should never have even requested permission. He should have done the tests and they would have figured it out later. That’s why his hospital was 3/4 at fault.
Government health care in the US is a disaster.
IMO because you can’t have two tier health systems. It needs to be one way or the other TOTALLY.
So a two tier system is bad. So only either private or public is how it should be. But if the system is public, then it will be for profit which you have already also deemed bad. So the only possible system is the government run healthcare.
Congratulations, you’re a socialist, and lack any and all pretense of objectivity or willingness to actually debate and concede points.
LOL
Yes I am a socialist, so does that make me close minded?
I believe that EVERYONE should get the best health care available, rich or poor.
No, I don’t think that there’s only one system of health care that will work.
IMO a two tier health care system will work GREAT, a profit, or government system will work GREAT as well. I guess the question then becomes, what’s your definition of work?
A two tier system will WORK if you don’t mind the rich getting care they’re able to pay for, and the poor getting substandard care.
A profit system will WORK if you have a survival of the fittest mentalilty, only the strong (able to pay) will survive.
A government system will WORK as well, but IMO it works the BEST when it’s the ONLY system. You need to this system standardized across the board. Everyone pays so that everyone gets the same medical care. Noone gets left behind.
To say that I’m not objective and can’t argue, or see different points of view is very narrowminded.
As for people not getting treatment or medical care, it’s available if you choose to access it in Canada, NOONE is turned away from medical care in Canada, and I’m very proud of that.
Want some proof? Read about the Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center… It’s in a BAD state, even today.
Why would anyone use the Drew Medical Center to make any sort of point (except that gov’t-run hospitals are a joke)? Around here (S. Cal.) everyone knows that Drew is a joke. Honestly, Moore shot himself in the foot with that one.
As for the facts, Dr. Dang asked THREE times for permission to test from Dr. Brian Thompson
See the update. You are flat-out wrong. Dang BROKE THE LAW when he gave in to a telephone request like that. Period. No amount of twisting and distorting the facts can change that.
NOONE is turned away from medical care in Canada
Oh bullshit. I bet I can find at least one horror story where a patient died due to a screwup. Making someone wait until they die because you don’t have the capacity to treat them in the free system is JUST as bad as turning them away.
To say that I’m not objective and can’t argue, or see different points of view is very narrowminded.
The irony here is you went and proved you are EXACTLY that - close-minded. You see one solution and one solution ONLY, and you will twist and turn to avoid any thing like a fact that contradicts your one and only solution.
You, sir, are the very definition of close-minded when it comes to this issue.
IMO a two tier health care system will work GREAT
IMO because you can’t have two tier health systems. It needs to be one way or the other TOTALLY.
Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder?
As for people not getting treatment or medical care, it’s available if you choose to access it in Canada, NOONE is turned away from medical care in Canada, and I’m very proud of that.
They just might have to wait for an unreasonable amount of time. And sometimes its for something that had they been treated sooner, would be basic, but because of the long delay is now major, and life threatening.
NOONE is turned away from medical care in Canada, and I’m very proud of that.
Maybe you should rethink how proud you are. As I already stated if you believe that, then I have Unicorns in my backyard. We have hundreds of links on this site to stories of Canadians dieing while on waiting lists. In my book that is the same as being turned away.
Never mind which in this specific case you’ll note that Mychelle wasn’t “turned away”, she just didn’t receive proper care, there is a difference.
Yes I am a socialist, so does that make me close minded?
To say that I’m not objective and can’t argue, or see different points of view is very narrowminded.
Sorry, but our experience around here is that yes, socialists are closed- and narrow-minded, all the while arguing that we are guilty of that.
King-Drew is the same hospital that killed Edith Isabel Rodriguez—the case that many, including Ebert, are using to argue for more socialized medicine.
The public system in Canada works MUCH better than the system in the US. Yes there are problems, but EVERYONE gets medical treatment.
Mainly by driving across the border to America when they can’t be arsed to wait two years for an MRI.
I believe that EVERYONE should get the best health care available, rich or poor.
Did anybody tell you what happens when you have a limited supply but an unlimited demand? Making it available to everybody automatically means you won’t get the best care available. The quality will be truncated by the limited supply. What you propose violates this principle.
A two tier system will WORK if you don’t mind the rich getting care they’re able to pay for, and the poor getting substandard care.
Or if the second tier is relegated to the lowest 5% of citizens, a number which the economy of the remaining 95% can reasonably support.
You need to this system standardized across the board. Everyone pays so that everyone gets the same medical care.
Except NOT everybody pays, and the “same medical care” in question will be less than the “best” that you propose.
no one is turned away from medical care in Canada
Nor in the United States. The girl in this example was not turned away, she was the victim of bureaucracy. I certainly would not want to honor her memory by subjecting her survivors to still more bureaucracy.
Posted by JOttley on 07/09/2007 at 12:29 PM (Link to this comment | )
“The public system in Canada works MUCH better than the system in the US. Yes there are problems, but EVERYONE gets medical treatment.”
Access to a wait list is not healthcare....
Noone gets left behind.
True, but some die before they can get the medical care they need because of government imposed wait times.
I think it was this website that had an entry that has stories stating that Canadian doctors will recommend that their patients cross the boarder into the U.S. to get what could be life saving test done quicker then the tests would be done in Canada.
So JOttley tell me how thats better.
Oh bullshit. I bet I can find at least one horror story where a patient died due to a screwup. Making someone wait until they die because you don’t have the capacity to treat them in the free system is JUST as bad as turning them away.
JimK, I am pretty sure that you have at least one story like that on this site.
Having lived in the LA area, I can tell you that King/Drew is also nicknamed “Killer King”.
Any police officer shot in the area screams for them NOT to be taken to Killer King. They insist on being taken to ANY other hospital besides that one even if it’s miles further away.
There was a news story just recently about a woman who died at King/Drew in the ER waiting room with people dialing 911 to remove her from that hospital to take her to another one. There were even reports of the janitor mopping around the sick and dying woman.
There have been many calls to close the hospital down but due to politic pressure from people like Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson and political correctness for that matter, that sorry ass example of government run health care is still open.
Buzzion, reread my post again....
I haven’t contradicted myself at all… I think you just need to read a little harder to understand the whole concept of what I was trying to say.
I was trying to make the point that ANY system will work depending on your motives, it’s pretty lame saying I have multiple personality disorder.
I personally do have a system that I think WILL work better.
To attack me because I have a different point of view and because I’m willing to state it seems close minded. I haven’t attacked anyone, just stated my point view for discussion, which is what I thought this web site was about.
Access to a wait list is not healthcare....
I am Spanish, and I prefer the socialized healthcare system. Main differences between public and private healthcare systems:
1) Private: Is better in primary attention, more comfortable facilities, you can choose your doctor,…
2) Public: Is better refering to technology, good doctors work here, and it is sure that you’ll be attended when you have a serious problem.
So, my conclusion is: go to the public hospital. I’ve seen a lot rich people diying because of this (not going to a public hospital).
A public system is possible, government should increase social investment, instead of helping pharmacologic industry earn more and more money, using generic medications.
Best Regards.
Posted by sl0re on 07/09/2007 at 05:00 PM (Link to this comment | )
Posted by JOttley on 07/09/2007 at 12:29 PM (Link to this comment | )
“The public system in Canada works MUCH better than the system in the US. Yes there are problems, but EVERYONE gets medical treatment.”
Access to a wait list is not healthcare....
So you mean waiting to get treated is worse than not being able to afford treatment?
I never said that the Canadian system was perfect, but the health care you get in Canada doesn’t depend on your yearly income. If I had a terminal disease, I would be TERRIFIED about getting treatment in the US, but I have great confidence in the Canadian system.
Posted by JOttley on 07/09/2007 at 01:14 PM (Link to this comment | )
So you mean waiting to get treated is worse than not being able to afford treatment?
It means what it means. Not getting care in time or being harmed by a wait is what is. Not getting treatment.
Your a socialist so you will overlook this because your goal is having a socialist system. Things like forced equality and eliminating the profit motive are your goals. Not progress / the best possible healthcare for people. The most progressive system would be a mixed one with a floor of basic coverage for the poor in an otherwise free market system.
JOttley, I understand your position, and I have same opinion. I don’t really know what is the reason of having a healthcare system like French has or like Sweden has. I do not know any film critizicing these healthcare systems.
Everybody is attended, may be primary attention is not so fast when you have a cold, but I think that people should be trained about when to go to urgency; this is a problem here, everybody has insurance, and many people go to the doctor because of less important problems, like having a cold, and this is why I think that people should be educated about how to use public healthcare system.
I never said that the Canadian system was perfect, but the health care you get in Canada doesn’t depend on your yearly income. If I had a terminal disease, I would be TERRIFIED about getting treatment in the US, but I have great confidence in the Canadian system.
My sister, was in a horrible car accident. If you saw the car you would not believe that anyone had survived, let alone all 6 people in the car. By the time the ambulance got there, her fingers and toes were beginning to curl. They have never had anyone live if that was happening. Then there’s the 11 minute drive to the closest hospital, where they began treating her. While there my parents were notified about the accident. Before they could even get to the hospital they had called in for careflight to take her to another hospital over an hour away that was much larger and better able to save her life.
I doubt if my parents combined income is even close to $65,000/yr. Not once during all of that did they check to see if we could afford the treatment she was receiving at either hospital. Not once did they check to see if my parents had coverage to see if it would cover the treatment she got.
Helicopter rides like that aren’t cheap either.
To attack me… seems close minded.
Honestly, when you hear that term, you know you’re talking to a leftist.
I now return you to your debate in progress. :)
I never said that the Canadian system was perfect, but the health care you get in Canada doesn’t depend on your yearly income. If I had a terminal disease, I would be TERRIFIED about getting treatment in the US, but I have great confidence in the Canadian system.
I have had several relative die from terminal deseases, and they recieved wonderful care here in the U.S.
The thing that amazes me Jottlery is that your vast knowledge of the U.S. health care system comes from negative stories not the positive ones. Say like the Iranian twins that were seperated by U.S. doctors in an U.S. hospital. You never hear of that happening in a Canadian hospital.
I do not know any film criticizing these healthcare systems.
And that’s the shame of it—you will not find many who are willing (or brave?) enough to honestly and incisively examine the systems so dear to the liberal heart. I, for one, would pay good money to see a leftist documentary exposing the flaws of the ACLU, for example.
And that’s the shame of it—you will not find many who are willing (or brave?) enough to honestly and incisively examine the systems so dear to the liberal heart.
There are no films because nobody would see them, everybody is happy here with our socialized system, except very-rich people, who would like to pay less taxes and forget medium-low class. Fortunately, these are 10% of population :-)
It seems you are talking about repression or something like that, in order to be able to make a moovie about “leftists tragedies”, but fortunately Spain has enough liberty of expression for this kind of things.
We have liberty of expression as well, just not any leftists who are open-minded enough to criticize their own darlings.
There are no films because nobody would see them, everybody is happy here with our socialized system
Ohhh, I don’t think that’s true. I’m willing to bet there’s dissension, and not just among the very-rich.
We have liberty of expression as well, just not any leftists who are open-minded enough to criticize their own darlings.
I dont like the game of saying meaningless words, I think this is important enough to be serious and forget who is left and who is right.
As I told before, there are many diferences between private and public system:
1) Private: Is better in primary attention, more comfortable facilities, you can choose your doctor,…
2) Public: Is better refering to technology, good doctors work here, and it is sure that you’ll be attended when you have a serious problem.
What is your opinion about this? Would you change it from your personal experience?
BR
As for the facts, Dr. Dang asked THREE times for permission to test from Dr. Brian Thompson
See the update. You are flat-out wrong. Dang BROKE THE LAW when he gave in to a telephone request like that. Period. No amount of twisting and distorting the facts can change that.
Um the conversations were recorded by the Kaiser doctor, he WAS asked three times by Dang. It’s a fact that’s stated here…
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990413/67733.htm
NOONE is turned away from medical care in Canada
Oh bullshit. I bet I can find at least one horror story where a patient died due to a screwup. Making someone wait until they die because you don’t have the capacity to treat them in the free system is JUST as bad as turning them away.
And a couple horror stories mean the whole system is screwed up? My point is POOR people in Canada have equal opportunity to health care as the rich or middle class.
To say that I’m not objective and can’t argue, or see different points of view is very narrowminded.
The irony here is you went and proved you are EXACTLY that - close-minded. You see one solution and one solution ONLY, and you will twist and turn to avoid any thing like a fact that contradicts your one and only solution.
You, sir, are the very definition of close-minded when it comes to this issue.
Wow, I’m not close minded at all, I just have strong convictions and I haven’t heard anything so far that has made me change my mind.
Ohhh, I don’t think that’s true. I’m willing to bet there’s dissension, and not just among the very-rich.
Of course there are different points of view, but this is not a country where everbody lives with the dream of being rich in the future (sometimes I think US is), because there is less difference between poor and rich people. 90% of people has almost everything they want, we have high taxes, but we have a lot of social helps…
It is empirical demonstrated that 1 euro invested in social help produces more wealth than 1 euro invested in private systems.
BR.
90% of people has almost everything they want
90% of people have what they want? I am guessing it should be what they need. There is a difference between want and need.
You dont have to have something you want. You have to have something you need.
I dont know any one that has everything they want, and if you say you have everyhting you want then you are one of the rear ones.
Gonzalo, if you are going to respond to this, think before you do. If there is even just one thing that you want that you dont already have, then you are in the same boat as me.
Wow, I’m not close minded at all, I just have strong convictions and I haven’t heard anything so far that has made me change my mind.
But because we have strong convictions and aren’t wavering, we are close-minded...?
90% of people have what they want? I am guessing it should be what they need. There is a difference between want and need.
You dont have to have something you want. You have to have something you need.
I dont know any one that has everything they want, and if you say you have everyhting you want then you are one of the rear ones.
Gonzalo, if you are going to respond to this, think before you do. If there is even just one thing that you want that you dont already have, then you are in the same boat as me.
Oooops… sorry I meant to say need. That would save you all that verbal diarrhoea. Sorry again. [ironic] I see you have a special talent to notice important messages of the post [ironic]
I dont like the game of saying meaningless words
Trust me, this is no game. I want to see Michael Moore take on the ACLU in his usual style. Prove to me that anything like that would ever be filmed.
Um the conversations were recorded by the Kaiser doctor, he WAS asked three times by Dang. It’s a fact that’s stated here… http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990413/67733.htm
Jesus fucking Christ. Your ability to ignore ANYTHING that contradicts your vision is astounding.
That ENTIRE PAGE is about the fact that Dang BROKE THE LAW by not treating her. It doesn’t matter what the kaiser doctor said. Dang’s job was to treat her and stabilize her BEFORE even consulting with Kaiser. The fact that he was stupid enough to listen to a Kaiser doctor who wasn’t there is PRECISELY THE POINT: it was malpractice. His job was not to ask permission. It was to treat, then test, then stabilize and ONLY THEN consider moving her.
You can’t POSSIBLY be so narrow minded to not admit that, as the facts are plainly evident on the very page you cited.
Here’s just two lousy paragraphs that utterly destroy your comment:
As pertinent here, the elements of a civil claim for failure to stabilize include the following: (1) the hospital had actual knowledge that a patient was suffering from an “emergency medical condition”; and (2) did not, within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, provide for necessary stabilizing treatment before transfer or discharge, i.e., the transfer or discharge was not medically reasonable under the circumstances; and (3) the patient suffered personal harm as a direct result.
In stabilizing a patient, a hospital must, within the staff and facilities available to it, meet requirements that relate to the prevailing standard of professional care: it must give the treatment medically necessary to stabilize a patient and it may not discharge or transfer the patient unless it provides “treatment that medical experts agree would prevent the threatening and severe consequences of [the patient’s emergency medical condition] while [he or] she was in transit.”
That’s from the page you cited, which I am willing to bet a thousand bucks you did not read beginning to end. Note that nowhere in there does it say “Oh, but it’s OK if a doctor at some other facility tells you not to follow the law over the phone. That makes it TOTALLY his fault.”
Lastly, use the formatting buttons. They exist for a reason. If you want to use this website, use it in accordance to how we set it up. Quote and link properly.
2) Public: Is better refering to technology, good doctors work here, and it is sure that you’ll be attended when you have a serious problem.
Better doctors, are you refering to the same doctors that just got arrested for planning terrorist attacks in London.
I am also guessing that private facilites have better technology as well.
RSS (Subscribe)
Thank you so much for posting stuff like this.