Jump to content

Menu

Let's file this under.....


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think he crossed the line...definitely! Even though it will wash off...where does he get off putting that on her! I can't believe a DOCTOR would do that.... But...I am a person who hates scars...and tattoos.

 

I would probably think about suing also, LOL!

 

Tammy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's frivolous. If it really upset her she should just complain to the doctor. I think the doctor meant well but obviously not everyone wants a temporary tattoo on their panty line to cheer them up. LOL

 

I can't imagine I would have cared. I just wanted more morphine. And more morphine. And while we are at it, could I have some more morphine!!!

 

I can't imagine that I would have even noticed a temp. tattoo, much less cared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know though now that I think about it. I wouldn't want a temp. tattoo applied without my permission either. You're already unconcious and having surgery. Some women are very, very sensitive about their bodies and that tattoo may have made them feel slightly violated. It may be from past experiences or just their personality. If she's going to sue thought it should be for very little and the promise that he only "tattoo" those he has permission from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have words with my doctor about it. I might even write a letter to be "placed in his file" if there is such a thing. But I would not sue over it.

 

All this "might" would all depend on how dh saw it. If he thought it was funny/cute/harmless then I would be guilted into getting over it. But let's face it, I'm a twisted knicker person at heart. I twist them up and then slowly get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

give me a break.

 

What say the hive? Frivolous lawsuit or damaging to the "victim's" psyche?

 

Call it like you see it.

 

:lurk5:

 

 

Edited to temper my first response. Reading others' thoughts helps me understand why this might be disturbing to some. But, I still believe people need to lighten up. We're all too quick to blow - evidenced by my own "blow" in my initial reply. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have words with my doctor about it. I might even write a letter to be "placed in his file" if there is such a thing. But I would not sue over it.

 

All this "might" would all depend on how dh saw it. If he thought it was funny/cute/harmless then I would be guilted into getting over it. But let's face it, I'm a twisted knicker person at heart. I twist them up and then slowly get over it.

 

I agree. But I wonder if the doctor and staff was condescending to her complaint. That might make a woman mad enough to sue. Hopefully, she's just trying to make a point to the doctor. It may not really be about money at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would feel violated as well. I mean, I know when I had to be put under for surgery the thought crossed my mind of them doing "weird things" to me while I was out, lol.

 

That is a private area of her body, and it just seems a really weird thing to do. She is not a kid who needs stickers, and is that really going to lift her spirits? I know after abdominal surgery I was in so much pain I can't imagine a tattoo making me feel better!

 

I don't think I would sue, just because it would take a lot for me to sue anyone, but I can really sympathize with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think the lawsuit is indeed frivolous, I think the behavior and the decisions made by the doctor were inappropriate and unprofessional. I hope this makes him rethink his practices. I would not have appreciated his little "gift of therapy". I would have felt somehow violated by his actions. If I had known beforehand that there would be a "surprise" upon awakening from surgery I would have looked forward to it and it would have helped to lift my spirits, but doing it without my consent would have really irked me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What say the hive? Frivolous lawsuit or damaging to the "victim's" psyche?

Call it like you see it.

 

 

If he were trying to perk up her spirits, he could have put the tattoo in a less suggestive place.* The doctor has access to a sensitive or private body part for medical purposes; professional ethics requires that he minimize the breach of privacy. Drawing attention to his access to that sensitive area is considered a breach of ethics. (Imagine your GYN capping off a breast exam with a pasty--it's more than just bad taste. It's deliberately heightening your feeling of "exposure.")

 

But this woman misunderstands the nature of suffering if she believes this is a compensable "injury." She needs to be filing a complaint with hospital boards and state medical boards, not suing.

 

Unless, of course, she tried to file complaints and no one is listening, or found that he had been reprimanded multiple times for such behavior. Then, I can see where a lawsuit would be warranted.

 

*I'm wondering, though, whether the tattoo was simply next to her incision. If it is, the woman and her lawyer are twisting this dreadfully. A tattoo near one's incision, where the incision happens to be below the pantyline, is not the same thing as a tattoo that is below the pantyline when the incision is in your arm. It's still not something the doctor should be doing--see the "minimizing breach of privacy" thing above--but it's not at all what they're making it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would feel violated as well. I mean, I know when I had to be put under for surgery the thought crossed my mind of them doing "weird things" to me while I was out, lol.

 

That is a private area of her body, and it just seems a really weird thing to do. She is not a kid who needs stickers, and is that really going to lift her spirits? I know after abdominal surgery I was in so much pain I can't imagine a tattoo making me feel better!

 

I don't think I would sue, just because it would take a lot for me to sue anyone, but I can really sympathize with her.

 

I agree, I think it is creepy and inappropriate to place a tattoo in a private area while a patient is unconscious and completely vulnerable. If the rose were on her hand I could see it more in the spirit it was intended.

 

With that said, I think this "victim" is milking the experience for all it is worth. Lawsuits like this are one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive. (The other is health insurance...) :leaving:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd sue, but I'd be shocked. It sounds kind of creepy. And how in the world was she to know in her medicated state that it was temporary? Some of those temporary ones last a good few weeks. He crossed a line and deserves something for the stress he caused.;) jm2cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think the lawsuit is indeed frivolous, I think the behavior and the decisions made by the doctor were inappropriate and unprofessional. I hope this makes him rethink his practices. I would not have appreciated his little "gift of therapy". I would have felt somehow violated by his actions. If I had known beforehand that there would be a "surprise" upon awakening from surgery I would have looked forward to it and it would have helped to lift my spirits, but doing it without my consent would have really irked me.

 

 

 

Isn't it evident that the tattoo was placed where the doctor was already requiring full view and access? It's not like she had a hernia on her arm. Is the problem that the tattoo reminds the patient of something she'd rather forget -- that she was "exposed" during the surgery? And, why are we so sensitive about that?

 

I'm a modest woman. But, this just doesn't seem like grounds for a lot of anger to me. Bigger fish to fry and all that. I guess I feel that a good percentage of our problems as a people is the result of spending way too much time in our own anger. This from a twisted knicker person, you know? ;) It doesn't do any good, and mostly it does harm, to fester. I'm just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would feel violated as well. I mean, I know when I had to be put under for surgery the thought crossed my mind of them doing "weird things" to me while I was out, lol.

 

That is a private area of her body, and it just seems a really weird thing to do. She is not a kid who needs stickers, and is that really going to lift her spirits? I know after abdominal surgery I was in so much pain I can't imagine a tattoo making me feel better!

 

I don't think I would sue, just because it would take a lot for me to sue anyone, but I can really sympathize with her.

 

:iagree:

 

What he did was a violation of trust. I wouldn't sue, but he was in the wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*I'm wondering, though, whether the tattoo was simply next to her incision. If it is, the woman and her lawyer are twisting this dreadfully. A tattoo near one's incision, where the incision happens to be below the pantyline, is not the same thing as a tattoo that is below the pantyline when the incision is in your arm. It's still not something the doctor should be doing--see the "minimizing breach of privacy" thing above--but it's not at all what they're making it out to be.

 

 

I guess I'm ready to at least temper my earlier bold reply (it's been a long week folks, and my fuse is short...sorry...), but your description here is precisely what I was getting at in my reply under percytruffle's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she has a valid and serious case.

 

In an announcement about the civil action, Shivers said that the hospital had "immediately conducted a diligent and responsible investigation" that found no witnesses. "The patient reports that the hospital has treated her with appropriate respect and professionalism as she has gone through this difficult experience," the statement concluded.

 

Part of his client's concern, Shivers said, was knowing what took place.

 

"We're assuming that it would have to have happened after surgery," he said, "because during surgery she would be on her stomach."

 

My concerns are in this section of the article. I'm sure most drs are nice normal people, but unfortunately some are serious sickos who shouldn't have a license - regardless of quality of work. He is ALONE with an UNCONSCIENCE woman who should be laying ON HER STOMACH. I'm sure most of you know how vunerable and nervous most women (and men too?) are in such situations? The patient is putting her trust that no one will take advantage of her in such a situation, that those in charge will do the best work possible and ONLY the work the pateint has come in to have done. The patient is NAKED and UNconscience!

 

So she wakes up and learns he took the time to be alone with her, roll her over, and give her a tatoo - it's unclear if it was before or after the surgery. At the very least this doctor is flat out unprofessional. At worst, a female patient is left thinking, OMG what ELSE did he do while alone with me while I was unconscience?! Keep in mind there have been numerous past cases of patients raped or molested when unconscience or medical procedures done that weren't requested.

 

It would seriously freak me out that some weirdo was in a room alone with my naked unconscience body painting little tattoos on it without my permission. I mean come on - that sounds like the perfect intro to a silence of the lambs sequel to no one else?

 

Keep in mind, not all those tattoos "just wipe right off" - I've had to nearly scrub raw to get them off sometimes, even after weeks. NOT something a patient who just had surgery is in the mood to do.

 

I do think the dr was at least seriously stupid and any hospital that allows such things to be going on is lucky they aren't being sued to. Where were the other staff that should have been assisting and watching over this patient? That "no witnesses" thing is what bothers me the most. Every time I've had to deal with hospitals, they barely let you pee alone without a couple orderlys, nurses, janitors and heaven only knows how many others wandering around. Even during surgery and post-op there's at least a half dozen people in the room at any given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the problem that the tattoo reminds the patient of something she'd rather forget -- that she was "exposed" during the surgery? And, why are we so sensitive about that?

 

 

For me it wouldn't be about the modesty thing really. I have had surgery before and wasn't at all embarrassed about that aspect of it. I've had a lump removed from each of my "twins", lol. Heck, all sorts of men have seen it all during childbirth: male doctors and nurses alike.

 

But, (here's the big but part), it changes everything when what they are doing while they are "there" is not medical intervention and not done with my consent. It alters the professional doctor/patient relationship and causes a blurring of the lines that make for discomfort (and possible lawsuits).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add that I'm REALLY not a lawyer happy person...

Never sued anyone in my life anlthough I probably could and should have more than once.

 

BUT

 

Unfortunately hospitals and drs do not respond to anything other than law suits and even much of that is not public info a patient can find out before going to a dr. to help them weed out the bad drs.

 

For the most part hospitals and drs want to self govern and self police themselves, so often the ONLY way a patient can get to the heart of their own case and ensure such things don't happen again is to sue.

 

Take this case for example, who would have thought to tell their dr not to give them a temp tat or to ask the dr if they are planning on doing anything outside of the actual procedure while in there? Of course we don't think to ask such things! Because good drs shouldn't have to be asked and bad drs don't care if the patient likes it or not.A law suit like this makes hospitals and drs aware that evenif the policy doesn't prevent it - they can be sued for it and maybe some of them will think twice or at least the hospital will be stricter about allowing such foolishness.

 

Oh and I thought of another question...

in surgery shouldn't it be sterile? are kiddie temp tats sterile? pretty negligent to risk upping the #1 case of complication in any hospital - infection!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is ALONE with an UNCONSCIENCE woman who should be laying ON HER STOMACH. I'm sure most of you know how vunerable and nervous most women (and men too?) are in such situations? The patient is putting her trust that no one will take advantage of her in such a situation, that those in charge will do the best work possible and ONLY the work the pateint has come in to have done. The patient is NAKED and UNconscience!

 

I'm glad you found more information. This is *clearly* a breach of ethics. She needs to file complaints and possibly criminal charges.

 

But not a lawsuit--tort cases are for *injuries*, esp. ones that cause financial loss. You just don't get financial compensation in this country for having something bad done to you. They have to be compensable injuries--injuries that cost you something financially, that require medical care or cause you to miss work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it evident that the tattoo was placed where the doctor was already requiring full view and access? It's not like she had a hernia on her arm. Is the problem that the tattoo reminds the patient of something she'd rather forget -- that she was "exposed" during the surgery? And, why are we so sensitive about that?

 

Because it feels like a "compliment". I would fear maybe he enjoyed the exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you found more information. This is *clearly* a breach of ethics. She needs to file complaints and possibly criminal charges.

 

But not a lawsuit--tort cases are for *injuries*, esp. ones that cause financial loss. You just don't get financial compensation in this country for having something bad done to you. They have to be compensable injuries--injuries that cost you something financially, that require medical care or cause you to miss work.

 

 

Maybe she IS too fraught to work, at least for a bit. I could imagine feeling very depressed after something like that (learning these new details) And not knowing what really happened, maybe he DID do something physical to her? I find it very odd that he would turn her body over, pull down her undergarments and take the time to apply a tattoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is creepy behavior from the doctor. I don't see how he could have been in there alone, where were the nurses and other staff to help him?

 

I don't think she needs to sue the doctor over it..

I think people now a days want to sue over everything(just my own opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is creepy behavior from the doctor. I don't see how he could have been in there alone, where were the nurses and other staff to help him?

 

That's where I have a big problem with it, and why I think it *may* be sue worthy.

 

During surgery there are at LEAST two other people in the room with the Dr. how could he have done something like that, and have no witnesses? Esp. since after surgery they usually keep you in post-op till you wake up, then you get taken to your room.

 

Either someone is not telling the truth (the victim possibly, or a nurse defending the Dr?) or that Dr did something very, very wrong. And if he was alone with her long enough to apply a tattoo, who knows what else he could have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I thought of another question...

in surgery shouldn't it be sterile? are kiddie temp tats sterile? pretty negligent to risk upping the #1 case of complication in any hospital - infection!

 

 

I'm guessing this happened post op. The incision would have closed and covered with a sterile dressing. Then the sterile bit is over. The anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist would have been in there bringing the patient out of anesthesia. The OR tech would have been counting instruments, the nurse would have been getting the patient ready to transfer to recovery. It wouldn't be sterile anymore. And a lot of busy activities would have been going on around that patient. So while no one "witnessed" the actual placing of the tattoo, the patient was probably never alone with the doctor.

 

At least that's how it's been in any OR I've been in. If it is otherwise, well, then that doctor has a big problem on his hands, I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it wouldn't be about the modesty thing really. I have had surgery before and wasn't at all embarrassed about that aspect of it. I've had a lump removed from each of my "twins", lol. Heck, all sorts of men have seen it all during childbirth: male doctors and nurses alike.

 

But, (here's the big but part), it changes everything when what they are doing while they are "there" is not medical intervention and not done with my consent. It alters the professional doctor/patient relationship and causes a blurring of the lines that make for discomfort (and possible lawsuits).

 

 

:iagree: At least it wasn't a stretch mark tatoo, I would sue over that one. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought too until Martha dug up more info. After reading what she found I am glad the woman is suing. I am usually not in favor of lawsuits, but this seems very out of line.

 

 

...there being no witnesses, if it's true, opens up an entirely different can of worms. I do have to wonder, though -- would you expect that this patient had already heard about the fact that this man had given out tattoos to other patients? Didn't the article say that the doctor had done this before? Does it feel to anyone else like there may be bits of the story missing (as usual)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawsuit? No. Formal complaint? Abso-freakin-lutely!

 

Having surgery puts one in an incredibly vulnerable position -- you're unconscious with someone touching you in the most intimate of ways (inside your body) -- and to do something so creepy and disturbing as to mark an intimate part of my body with a tattoo that could be interpreted to have sexual implications?!?

 

I can't *fathom* how any thinking doctor could imagine that a tattoo of a red rose beneath my panty line would make me "feel better" after surgery. Hello Kitty tattoo on my hand?!? Well, it wouldn't make me feel better, but it wouldn't make me feel violated at least. If he really wanted to make me feel better, leave a card!

 

I don't think it's worth a lawsuit. But I would file a complaint with the hospital and with the state, and I would never go back to that doctor. It's totally inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there being no witnesses, if it's true, opens up an entirely different can of worms. I do have to wonder, though -- would you expect that this patient had already heard about the fact that this man had given out tattoos to other patients? Didn't the article say that the doctor had done this before? Does it feel to anyone else like there may be bits of the story missing (as usual)?

 

Possibly, there usually is something that is untold.

 

I can see her not knowing beforehand though. If the doctor didn't tell her and his assistants didn't tell her either, how would she have known? If they wanted it to be a surprise they wouldn't have said anything. It seems very plausible to me that she had no foreknowledge of the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. He purposely turned her over and gave her temp tat!:glare: My dh would be absolutely livid!

 

 

Just to be clear... I am not defending the guy. The whole thing gives me a feeling of "ICK"!

 

But, the OR team would have turned the patient over after the surgery as they got her cleaned up and ready to go to recovery. There isn't an OR environment where a patient is alone, still under anesthesia, and anyone could just walk in there, flip her over and give her a tattoo. It's just not how things operate. There is more (or possibly much less) to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this question is directed to me, but i'll answer.

 

Nothing. Just like all of the other wrong and inappropriate, but not illegal, things in life. But I'm hoping he has just enough sense to stop now, whether the lawsuit goes forward or not. And, well, if this lady is successful, that'll stop him for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a frivolous lawsuit. I have never seen a medical malpractice suit that was frivolous before...but this one definitely is.

 

I sued for malpractice before, some of you know the details. It definitely was not frivolous. People like the woman in that article make me sick because they make it harder on those of us who have real issues (like the mistake taking the life of our child). So what if she had a temporary tattoo!! Give me a big huge friggin break!!! She is alive and well and the doctor did a good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this question is directed to me, but i'll answer.

 

Nothing. Just like all of the other wrong and inappropriate, but not illegal, things in life. But I'm hoping he has just enough sense to stop now, whether the lawsuit goes forward or not. And, well, if this lady is successful, that'll stop him for sure.

 

 

She will not be successful. Lawsuits go through several appeals generally. With tort reform, she will not even stand to win enough to make a difference in her life, as she will soon see. But then again, some people are so money hungry, even if they get $1 out of it, she will be happy. But regardless, it will not go through, trust me, I have watched lawsuits for a while now (since my son died) and very little gets through, even with beyond a doubt proof of serious damage. The lawyers for the malpractice insurance companies will question her about everything right down to her experiences in the womb and she will spend years on this alone. She won't even get in to court for 10 yrs or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brain not working, so I ask:

 

If it is wrong and inappropriate but not illegal, then what is to stop doctor from doing it again?

 

There are lots of things that aren't illegal but that would be dealt with by professional organizations or by the hospital with which he was associated. He doesn't have to be dealt with by civil authorities to be dealt with. The hospital could revoke his privileges; he could be reprimanded by his state board; his license could be revoked. And there's always the free market angle--patients could start leaving his practice.

 

It's similar, in my mind, to a pastor making pass at a parishioner. Not even remotely illegal, but s/he would be in hot water professionally. It would be wrong and inappropriate, and totally legal, and dealt with outside the legal setting. You can't make sure it NEVER happens again, but you can do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...