balls get in the way wrote:
http://m.newsok.com/boy-who-lost-testicles-during-surgery-awarded-no-money/article/3926902
If I have my nuts chopped off, would that be a valid excuse to be able to bloat up on testosterone so I can run faster?
You know that surgery is risky when you consent to it. It's unfortunate that it turned out the way it did, but there is always going to be risk involved when you let someone open you up.
You need more information to determine whether that decision was right. This is an oversimplification, but if it was a risk that was inherent in the surgery, then it was right, whereas if the surgeons made a mistake that no competent surgeon would make, then it was wrong.
Parents authorized one surgery and the surgeons performed another. Seems like the parents, on behalf of the boy, should receive compensation for a botched surgery.
highway to hell wrote:
Parents authorized one surgery and the surgeons performed another. Seems like the parents, on behalf of the boy, should receive compensation for a botched surgery.
We have no idea what was discussed with the parents prior to the operation. It is possible that they discussed the contingency and agreed that if they found a particular condition, they would have to remove the testicles. It really isn't uncommon to go into surgery with a plan that includes multiple possible procedures depending upon the conditions that are found.
If it was as simple as you make it sound, a jury would not have ruled as they did. If it was just the medical equivalent of ordering a cheeseburger and getting a chicken sandwich by mistake, the law suit would have gone differently.
Inherent Risk wrote:We have no idea what was discussed with the parents prior to the operation. It is possible that they discussed the contingency and agreed that if they found a particular condition, they would have to remove the testicles.
Correct- this is the reason why one reverts to the legal agreement signed by both parties.
highway to hell wrote:
Inherent Risk wrote:We have no idea what was discussed with the parents prior to the operation. It is possible that they discussed the contingency and agreed that if they found a particular condition, they would have to remove the testicles.Correct- this is the reason why one reverts to the legal agreement signed by both parties.
You can't consent to malpractice.
A Portland jury awarded no money Thursday to the parents of a little boy who lost his testicles during a surgery at Oregon Health & Science University.
Jurors deliberated for about six hours after six days of trial before siding with OHSU -- saying surgeons didn't lack the necessary permission to operate using what his parents claimed was an unpermitted technique on the boy.
The boy's parents had sought $1.4 million to pay for medical expenses, including the twice-monthly testosterone injections he will need starting at age 11 for the rest of his life. The parents also sought the money for what his father described as the awkward moments his son would likely encounter as he grows up -- “for how his son would feel in the locker room, or with a girl,” said the parents’ attorney, Richard A. Lane.
The boy’s parents left the Multnomah County courthouse holding hands. His mother wiped away tears.
The Oregonian isn’t identifying the parents or the boy to protect his privacy.
The boy was 11 months old at the time of the 2009 surgery. He is now 5 and in kindergarten.
A month before the surgery, the boy’s father had signed a written consent form for surgeons to relocate the boy’s undescended testicles using a specific technique that would require two surgeries. OHSU surgeons attempted to relocate the testicles using a technique that required just one surgery -- its attorney argued because it was in the best interests of the boy.
The surgeons had written consent only to perform the technique that would require two surgeries.
After researching the issue extensively, the boy’s parents believed the two-surgery procedure would create the smallest risk of losing his testicles -- and that’s why they gave permission to surgeons only to perform the first stage of the two-stage process, said their attorney.
“They wanted to get it done right," Lane said. "They didn’t want it to be done quick. But OHSU said they knew better. And even now they’re not listening to what the parents wanted for their son.”
Lane continued, "This verdict is as much about (the boy) as it is about every other patient at OHSU."
But OHSU attorney Nikola Jones argued that doctors received the couple’s verbal consent to use the technique that was in the best interests of the boy. And that technique could only be known once surgeons began operating and assessed the location of the testicles.
Jones faulted an untrained resident for failing to properly fill out the written informed consent form to reflect the possibility that doctors might try to relocate the boy’s testicles in one surgery.
The loss of the boy's testicles was a "very unfortunate incident that resulted from the inherent risks of surgery," Jones said.
Studies have found that 2 to 6 percent of boys are born with undescended testicles. Often the testicles descend on their own over time, but sometimes they require surgery to move to the scrotum. Among other reasons, the surgery is performed to lessen the chances of cancer later in life.
The boy at the center of this case was born with Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome. Boys with this rare condition are more likely to have undescended testicles. The condition also is often characterized by lower IQs and delays in speaking, among other challenges. One study found that all adult males with the syndrome were infertile.
Jurors were asked to answer two questions. In respect to a claim that surgeons committed "battery" against the boy, "Did OHSU perform a procedure on (the boy) without consent?" Jurors 9-3 answered "no."
Jurors also were asked, "Did OHSU fail to obtain informed consent to the procedure?" Jurors 10-2 answered no.
-- Aimee Green
Loss of testicles or testicular function is actually on the preprinted consent form for this procedure. It is also discussed preoperatively with consenting patents. In addition, failure to address undescended testicles increases the incidence of gesticulating cancer. Mention of malpractice and other ridiculous statements make it quite obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I question how this mentality might bleed over into other threads with statement made by people, and naive readers taking it as fact.
*parents not patents
*testicular not gesticulating
Effing auto-correct.
Note: many teaching institutions with residency and fellowship programs use blank consents, which in this case, had a massive downside.
In any event it appears the boy would have been infertile.
The obvious solution is the equivalent of neuticles and free testosterone treatment as needed.
They have timed release hormone implants for animals. Surely they could solve most of the problems without too much difficulty.
The article is severely lacking in relevant information. Obviously the doctors saw something that made them change course. Presumably they didn't just forget what procedure they were supposed to be performing. But the article doesn't explain why the decision was made.
I tend to be leery of these types of articles. An individual can say whatever the want to the media about a doctor, but a doctor can't really refute anything in the media because they are required to keep medical records confidential. A surgeon can't do an interview to explain themselves and clarify mistruths.
brogan1 wrote:
The surgeons had written consent only to perform the technique that would require two surgeries.
After researching the issue extensively, the boy’s parents believed the two-surgery procedure would create the smallest risk of losing his testicles -- and that’s why they gave permission to surgeons only to perform the first stage of the two-stage process, said their attorney.
“They wanted to get it done right," Lane said. "They didn’t want it to be done quick. But OHSU said they knew better. And even now they’re not listening to what the parents wanted for their son.”
The wrong surgery was done without the parent's consent, which was admitted by the surgeon's attorney.
Meanwhile the surgeons got paid for blotching this family's life, and they don't give a shit.
Amazing that a jury did not award at least compensation for medical expenses. Juries usually are suckers for cases like that.
hipaa wrote:
The article is severely lacking in relevant information. .
Of course it is. It never says WHERE they were going to relocate the testicles.
At least he was already infertile
I often wonder why everyone becomes a medical expert whenever the media cooks up one of these medical malpractice stories.
Please read this article
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/1101/p2037.html
The two initial surgical approaches to the nonpalpable testis are the open inguinal and diagnostic laparoscopic techniques. In the open inguinal approach,31 the groin is explored. If cord structures or testicular remnants are found, they are removed, and the procedure is terminated. If the groin exploration is negative, the incision is extended, and the peritoneum is entered in a search for an intra-abdominal testis.
The second surgical approach to the nonpalpable testis is laparoscopic. Diagnostic laparoscopy, which is a safe procedure in experienced hands, is performed initially.32–34 Using a laparoscope placed through the umbilicus, the inguinal rings are examined, and the status of the processus vaginalis (patent or non-patent), wolffian structures and testicular vessels can be easily identified. The presence of blind-ending spermatic vessels confirms an absent testis, allowing termination of the procedure without a groin incision. If vessels and vas deferens exit the internal ring, the groin can be explored. If an intra-abdominal testis is identified, the physician can then choose the best surgical approach.
In summary, the surgeons found nonviable testicles, and removed them. They did not destroy viable testicles. The parents probably wanted laparoscopic surgery to first identify the testicles, but the end result is the same. The testicles were not viable, and needed to be removed. I would really like a urologist's take on this, but it seems like what the OSHU surgeons did was essentially standard of care.
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
NY Times: Treadmill desks might really be worth it. Does anyone use one?
Narve Nordas (3.34.11) crushed Filip Ingebrigtsen (3:38.91) on Tuesday