Quantcast

Medical Malpractice

JOEBIALEK

Chimp
Jan 29, 2005
15
0
On May 7, 2001, my mother, Eileen Bialek {age 72} underwent elective surgery for correction of a prolapsed uterus and cystocle. The surgeon in the department of Urology at a major medical facility in Cleveland agreed to perform an open laparotomy with a uterine suspension. Eileen’s past medical history included colon resection for bowel cancer 18 years prior. The surgeon was aware that she had previous abdominal surgery but decided that open laparotomy was the procedure of choice and did not discourage Eileen from this type of surgery despite the risk of complications. He did not offer her a second opinion. No prior medical conditions pertinent to this surgery were present. With the exception of symptoms of urgency and a visually prolapsed uterus, Eileen had no other medical problems. She was active in her church and community as well as taking care of her spouse.
Postoperative course initially was normal until discharge when she started to vomit bile and was readmitted 18 hours post discharge. The surgeon evaluated Eileen and suspected she developed a postoperative ileus. His initial treatment consisted of telling her daughter to " give her a milkshake" to encourage her bowel to move. She did indeed follow the surgeon's advice; however, Eileen’s condition continued to deteriorate. Conservative treatment over the following two weeks consisted of clear liquids and nothing by mouth. Total parenteral nutrition {TPN} was then initiated and finally bowel decompression via nasogastric tube. Preliminary x-rays were done but results were not followed up on.

At two weeks postop a computed tomography {CT} scan was done which revealed a blockage in the small bowel. The surgeon advised Eileen of the need to return to surgery because he suspected that an adhesion was causing the blockage and it needed to be released. Eileen consented to the surgery and requested that her previous surgeon {bowel cancer} be in attendance. The current surgeon said he was out of town and he was asking another colorectal surgeon to be on hand.

Eileen was taken to surgery May 17, 2001. After 5.5 hrs of surgery the surgeon informed her daughter that he found a portion of the small bowel had twisted and he had to resect a portion of it. Because there were enterotomies, a jejunostomy was placed along with two mucous fistuals. Blood loss required transfusion of six units of blood during surgery. Eileen was transferred to the surgical intensive care where she required full fluid resuscitation and mechanical ventilation for two weeks. She sustained atrial fibrillation, required seventeen units of blood and clotting factors secondary to developing large retroperitonal hematoma. She remained in the ICU for 4 weeks and transferred to the floor for two more weeks at which time she was admitted to a long term acute care hospital. Before discharge the resident informed her that she had a rectal laceration and would need to have that repaired when her jejunostomy would be reversed in one year. She remained at the acute care hospital for 4 weeks then transferred to a nursing home to continue her recovery. Eileen was so debilitated from the surgery she required daily physical and occupational therapy.

During this entire time she experienced daily nausea and vomiting. Physicians at two different hospitals were consulted and determined that gallstones in the common bile duct were causing her symptoms along with elevated liver function. Eileen underwent repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatopography {ERCP} over the next several months as no surgeon would remove her gallbladder for risk of causing more bleeding and complications.

Eileen had two episodes of sepsis treated by antibiotics during several readmits to the original surgical facility.

Finally in December of 2002, she became acutely septic and unresponsive and was transferred to the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The hospital surgeon determined that removing her gallbladder was probably her only chance to survive. She was placed on full life support, aggressive antibiotic management, vasopressor agents and taken to surgery. The surgeon successfully removed the gallbladder and informed the family that her organs were stuck together like cement. He gave no guarantees but stated that with antibiotics and life support she may be able to survive but with an arduous recovery. The bilirubin continued to rise; she was severely jaundiced and no longer responded to increase vasopressors or dialysis. Eileen Bialek expired on January 8, 2002. The postmortem documents indicated that she died of organ failure secondary to sepsis. The origin of the infection was vancomycin resistant enterococci {VRE} in the common bile duct probably secondary to the ERCP or the residual retroperitoneal hematoma.

I believe she was deceived by her surgeon in terms of the full disclosure of the risks involved in this kind of surgery. Anyone who knew her would testify that she was not one to take un-necessary risks. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to pass "Do No Harm" legislation requiring a neutral third party to be present during all pre-surgical consultations.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,369
7,766
"With the exception of symptoms of urgency and a visually prolapsed uterus, Eileen had no other medical problems."

do you expect surgeons to be able to tell the future? i'm (completely) unfamiliar with the exact procedures and alternatives out there, but a prolapsed uterus is not all that uncommon. why would you expect the surgeon to dissuade your mother, presumably competent and thus able to give informed consent, from an operation he/she would expect to be trouble free?

i have sympathy for your family, as it's difficult to see anyone suffer and die, especially after several rounds of operations. but the presence of adhesions and post-op complications does not necessarily indicate malpractice.
 

TheInedibleHulk

Turbo Monkey
May 26, 2004
1,886
0
Colorado
Tell me something, if you had been there with her at the consult, would you have told her not to have the surgery because it was too risky? Are you a medical expert? Is the "third party" going to be an expert on the subject, or just some random clown who doesn't know anything? Your mother got unlucky and suffered from surgical complications, which does not neccesarily mean there was malpractice of any kind. Immediately blaming doctors whenever something doesnt go perfectly does nothing but disable the medical establishment to do its job when they have people that they can save. Do you honestly think a doctor would lie to an old woman in order to intentionally put her in harms way? Your mother was 72 years old, and I am sorry for your loss but your belief that she was deceived is not logical. Don't make life harder for everyone, especially by thowing another wrench in the already slow works of the medical system and creating more work and wasting more time for overworked doctors with poor job security, just because you suffered a loss.

Please tell me you're not suing any doctors?
 

JOEBIALEK

Chimp
Jan 29, 2005
15
0
Thanks for your kind words. A medical ombudsman would serve as a checks and balance between doctor and patient. Companies today record conversations between company and customer. Had the surgeon advised my mother that one of the possible complications could be a jejunostomy, she would not have had it done.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
JOEBIALEK said:
Had the surgeon advised my mother that one of the possible complications could be a jejunostomy, she would not have had it done.
First, let me say I'm sorry for your loss. Second, let me say that I think it's valuable that we're discussing the issue in terms of a real person, because it removes the callousness it's easy to develop in debate in general, especially on the Internet. However, you also will find that this forum is pretty open, honest and blunt, and by posting this, you've opened a discussion...I hope you won't find dissent offensive, despite the fact that it's your mother we're discussing. If you do/will, I'd suggest you delete this thread, because you're probably going to get pissed.

If I was a judge or jury member, I'd find your statement above unconvincing in and of itself. It's mere speculation after the fact, colored by your knowledge of what the complication turned out to be. You can't say with any authority what her decision would have been at that point in time...and there's certainly a chance, possibly a big one, she'd have gone ahead with it anyhow. The uncertain nature of it destroys the credibility of your claim.

I'd be most interested to hear impartial medical professionals' assessments of how the surgeon's descriptions of the risks matched reality and accepted medical practice, as well as an assessment of the treatment of the post-op complications. (ha, hard to get an 'impartial' witness in the courtroom, as they're either witnesses for one party or the other, I assume...no way for the court to appoint a neutral 3d party? I'm no legal expert...)

If she or you were given an unrealistic picture of the risks, or were given misinformation on which to base your decision, then I'd say (as a reasonable layman, both medically and legally) that there's a case for malpractice.

I can't say whether you were or not without hearing testimony from the other side and outside experts...

MD
 

TheInedibleHulk

Turbo Monkey
May 26, 2004
1,886
0
Colorado
Agreed. And as far as getting new legislation past, I seriously doubt anyone is going to take you seriously. What you are proposing, although it sounds like a small request, will cost the medical establishment astronomically in both time and money. Understaffed hospitals will have to coordinate and pay these consults who will do absolutely nothing 99 percent of the time. The best qualified person to make a medical decision is a DOCTOR. They are human, they will make mistakes, but they still know what they're talking about more than anyone else and no one is going to be more qualified to make the right decision. Many hospitals are already teetering on the edge of bankrupcy, and doctors who have performed flawlessly for many years are finding themselves hit with pay cuts and lost jobs when they should be kicking back and relaxing after 30 years of doing one of the hardest jobs a person can do. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, mourn your mother, honor her memory, and don't go making things worse for other people in your situation. You think you are helping and I can appreciate that, but you're not.

You ride bikes right? Should bike shops have to have an impartial observer to warn the buyer of all the potential risks involved before purchasing a bike? Of course not, anyone with common sense knows that if you ride a bike you can crash, and that can result in any number of injuries including death. It is the same thing, a bike salesmen knows better than anyone else what kind of bike and gear a rider will need, they dont need some joker standing there telling the customer that that handlebar might break or that helmet might not work.

And oh, the "Do No Harm" name is downright insulting. Those doctors were trying to help your mother as much as they can. If they really didn't think your mother needed surgery they would have told her so and saved themselves the trouble, trust me they dont need any more work. To imply that doctors intentionally do patients harm is not only bullcrap but incredibly ungrateful and offensive.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
TheInedibleHulk said:
You ride bikes right? Should bike shops have to have an impartial observer to warn the buyer of all the potential risks involved before purchasing a bike? Of course not, anyone with common sense knows that if you ride a bike you can crash, and that can result in any number of injuries including death. It is the same thing, a bike salesmen knows better than anyone else what kind of bike and gear a rider will need, they dont need some joker standing there telling the customer that that handlebar might break or that helmet might not work.

And oh, the "Do No Harm" name is downright insulting. Those doctors were trying to help your mother as much as they can. If they really didn't think your mother needed surgery they would have told her so and saved themselves the trouble, trust me they dont need any more work. To imply that doctors intentionally do patients harm is not only bullcrap but incredibly ungrateful and offensive.
This is a bit of a false analogy. Obviously what doctors do is far more important than what bike shop owners do. Additionally, I don't think he was suggesting that doctors intentionally do harm. Other than that I do agree basically, unfortunately patients do die despite the best efforts of the medical staff. I'm sure everyone feels for the OP but it does sound like one of those cases where the worst case scenario was realised. I'm sorry for your loss.