Post by: geronimotwo on January 17, 2008, 06:54:06 AM
Quote
NEW YORK (CBS/AP) ― A construction worker is suing a Manhattan hospital, claiming that when he went to the emergency room after being hit on the forehead by a wooden beam, medical staffers forcibly gave him a rectal exam.
Brian Persaud, 38, says in court papers that after he denied a request by NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital emergency room employees to examine his rectum, he was "assaulted, battered and falsely imprisoned."
His lawyer, Gerrard M. Marrone, said he and Persaud later learned the exam was one way of determining whether he had suffered spinal damage in the accident.
Marrone said his client got eight stitches for a cut over his eyebrow.
Then, Marrone said, emergency room staffers insisted on examining his rectum and held him down while he begged, "Please don't do that." He said Persaud hit a doctor while flailing around and staffers gave him an injection, which knocked him out, and performed the rectal exam.
Persaud woke up handcuffed to a bed and with an oxygen tube down his throat, the lawyer said, and spent three days in a detention center.
A request by the hospital to dismiss Persaud's lawsuit was denied by Justice Alice Schlesinger, who ordered a trial to start March 31.
Hospital spokesman Bryan Dotson said, "While it would be inappropriate for us to comment on specifics of the case, we believe it is completely without merit and intend to contest it vigorously."
Persaud's lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, seeks unspecified damages. A judge dismissed a misdemeanor assault charge against him.
Brian Persaud, 38, says in court papers that after he denied a request by NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital emergency room employees to examine his rectum, he was "assaulted, battered and falsely imprisoned."
His lawyer, Gerrard M. Marrone, said he and Persaud later learned the exam was one way of determining whether he had suffered spinal damage in the accident.
Marrone said his client got eight stitches for a cut over his eyebrow.
Then, Marrone said, emergency room staffers insisted on examining his rectum and held him down while he begged, "Please don't do that." He said Persaud hit a doctor while flailing around and staffers gave him an injection, which knocked him out, and performed the rectal exam.
Persaud woke up handcuffed to a bed and with an oxygen tube down his throat, the lawyer said, and spent three days in a detention center.
A request by the hospital to dismiss Persaud's lawsuit was denied by Justice Alice Schlesinger, who ordered a trial to start March 31.
Hospital spokesman Bryan Dotson said, "While it would be inappropriate for us to comment on specifics of the case, we believe it is completely without merit and intend to contest it vigorously."
Persaud's lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, seeks unspecified damages. A judge dismissed a misdemeanor assault charge against him.
sounds like a gang rape
Post by: Fly320s on January 17, 2008, 09:27:23 AM
Watch out for the anal probing.
Post by: K Frame on January 17, 2008, 09:39:14 AM
It's NOT.
Moving to Round Table.
Post by: Paddy on January 17, 2008, 09:42:02 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on January 17, 2008, 10:03:05 AM
Makes you wonder what would become of things if we had full blown govt health care.
Post by: geronimotwo on January 17, 2008, 09:41:52 AM
Quote
How is this political?
i really don't care where this is posted, but i would think that this is somehow tied to an individuals constitutional rights.
Post by: crt360 on January 17, 2008, 10:31:15 AM
There's a lot that could be said here, but I'll avoid it for the sake of our polite, youthful and/or innocent members.
I would definitely sue had I been in his position.
Don't you love how company spokespersons always say the case against them "is completely without merit and they are going to contest it vigorously." Wouldn't you rather know what their lawyers are thinking?
Post by: BryanP on January 17, 2008, 10:40:12 AM
"But I have a headache!"
"Bend over."
"Why, did one of my checks bounce?"
Post by: K Frame on January 17, 2008, 12:02:37 PM
my understanding is that if you are of "sound mind" then you may refuse medical treatment.
i really don't care where this is posted, but i would think that this is somehow tied to an individuals constitutional rights.
Quote
How is this political?
i really don't care where this is posted, but i would think that this is somehow tied to an individuals constitutional rights.
Think again.
It was not a governmental agency or elected official administering the alleged rectal exam.
It was a medical doctor and supporting staff administering the alleged exam.
This doesn't come even remotely close to being political OR Constitutional in nature.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on January 17, 2008, 12:57:02 PM
Intern to Attending: "Yeah, I remember that being discussed in lecture. How does that work?"
Attending to Intern: "Well, I'll demonstrate it on the head injury patient in there. Follow me."
Attending to patient: "Sir, one of the things we'd like to do to determine if you have a spinal cord injury is a rectal exam."
Patient to Attending, after brief "WTF!?!?" moment: "I'm sorry, you wanna do what? That's what I thought. No thanks."
Attending to patient: "Sir, I think it's in your best interest. Now if you'll just lie on your side...."
Patient to Attending: "I DON'T THINK SO!"
Attending to staff: "Can I get some help in here restraining a combative patient!!!"
Staff then piles onto patient, patient fights back.
Attending: "He's combative, he's got a head injury. Let's paralyze and intubate him!"
Attending to Intern: "Ok. Now that we've got him unconscious and intubated, I'll demonstrate that procedure we were discussing earlier...."
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 17, 2008, 01:49:18 PM
Quote
Persaud's lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, seeks unspecified damages. A judge dismissed a misdemeanor assault charge against him.
I'd think there should be some criminal charges too. If one of us sedated someone and intubated them against their will we'd sure as he!! be in jail.
Post by: grampster on January 17, 2008, 02:07:01 PM
"I would definitely sue had I been in his position."
I'll bet you didn't even know what a great pun you made.
Post by: AJ Dual on January 17, 2008, 04:43:17 PM
Of course, not listening to the patient's wishes and the personal dignity issues are huge too.
Sounds like it's a difficult call, and at least something muddled and difficult enough to actually be worthy of a court's time.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 17, 2008, 05:37:22 PM
Post by: gunsmith on January 17, 2008, 09:26:36 PM
Post by: 280plus on January 17, 2008, 10:26:08 PM
Post by: HankB on January 18, 2008, 03:29:37 AM
Post by: RobTzu on January 18, 2008, 04:50:57 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 04:57:18 AM
How is this political?
It's NOT.
Moving to Round Table.
It's NOT.
Moving to Round Table.
Well, if it was a politician, they'd need to call in the proctologist to find their head?
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2008, 06:41:51 AM
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 18, 2008, 08:27:29 AM
.
Of course, not listening to the patient's wishes and the personal dignity issues are huge too.
Sounds like it's a difficult call, and at least something muddled and difficult enough to actually be worthy of a court's time.
Of course, not listening to the patient's wishes and the personal dignity issues are huge too.
Sounds like it's a difficult call, and at least something muddled and difficult enough to actually be worthy of a court's time.
Y'know, I hear what you are saying, and this not directed at you, but at the general attitude in this country. That said: BS. Someone else's potential liability *never* gives them the right to violate my personal freedoms. Their right to act in fear of liability ends at the physical boundaries of my body.
I was once subjected to a forced medical procedure. Further, a whole lot of women are; it is routine procedure in obstetrics. It is routine procedure in ER's. It is illegal and wrong. I don't think the fact that the SC has recognized the right to be free of unwanted touch is irrelevant. Sure, the hospital cannot be guilty of a constitutional violation, but it is an indication of the extreme importance of this right that is also protected at civil and criminal law in addition to constitutional law. And it is a real freaking shame that we're so sympathetic to the hospital's legal concerns that we're willing to even give them weight as an issue in the face of such blatant and egregious abuse and violation of a human being.
You were afraid of being sued if you didn't do it? Tough. You get the signature, you cover your ass. You do what you can. And that's all you can do. When you decide to extend your power into denying a person determination over his or her own body, you cross a serious and very ancient line and you need to pay, civilly and criminally. Licenses should be lost over this. Rapists should not be permitted to continue practicing in the profession they used to commit the rape.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 18, 2008, 11:14:16 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 03:25:32 PM
The hospital & ER staff are lucky he's only suing them; if that had happened to me or a family member, and the perps WEREN'T behind bars and charged with various and sundry crimes . . . their personal safety would not be assured.
They had no way of knowing whether his combativeness was due to head trauma or not. They were trying to ensure his safety. So you would threaten people for doing their jobs? Wonderful. 
Post by: Regolith on January 18, 2008, 03:46:27 PM
I don't think the fact that the SC has recognized the right to be free of unwanted touch is irrelevant. Sure, the hospital cannot be guilty of a constitutional violation..
No, but they can be guilty of assault and battery, which is what performing a medical procedure on a patient who refuses the treatment is classified as.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 18, 2008, 03:49:46 PM
but they can be guilty of assault and battery, which is what performing a medical procedure on a patient who refuses the treatment is classified as.
Um, Regolith, I'm glad we agree on this, but the way you quoted the first half of my sentence in a matter that looks like you're trying to refute it leaves me wondering if you caught the second half of the sentence, which read:
Quote
...but it is an indication of extreme importance of this right that is also protected at civil and criminal law in addition to constitutional law.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 18, 2008, 03:50:38 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 18, 2008, 04:17:24 PM
The hospital & ER staff are lucky he's only suing them; if that had happened to me or a family member, and the perps WEREN'T behind bars and charged with various and sundry crimes . . . their personal safety would not be assured.
They had no way of knowing whether his combativeness was due to head trauma or not. They were trying to ensure his safety. So you would threaten people for doing their jobs? Wonderful. I think you're being a bit combative....maybe you need a rectal exam?
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 18, 2008, 06:43:26 PM
Hard to say what happened here, but as Ambulancedriver hints, overzealousness to teach procedures of dubious value aside... I can see how the hospital would possibly be in a catch-22. Brain injury can cause the victim to be combative. And if the hospital misses a neurological or spinal problem and the patient dies, or suffers a permanent disability or motor deficit, they could be on the hook for millions in malpractice.
Even acknowledging a smidgeon of relevence in the first part of your post, how could getting conked on the forehead with a 2x4 conceivable lead to a spinal chord injury that would in any way be revealed by a rectal examination? A rectal exam at best would allow the doc to manipulate the coccyx area and the sacchral area -- which are (in spinal terms) rather remote from the head.
Post by: roo_ster on January 18, 2008, 07:31:17 PM
.
Of course, not listening to the patient's wishes and the personal dignity issues are huge too.
Sounds like it's a difficult call, and at least something muddled and difficult enough to actually be worthy of a court's time.
Of course, not listening to the patient's wishes and the personal dignity issues are huge too.
Sounds like it's a difficult call, and at least something muddled and difficult enough to actually be worthy of a court's time.
Y'know, I hear what you are saying, and this not directed at you, but at the general attitude in this country. That said: BS. Someone else's potential liability *never* gives them the right to violate my personal freedoms. Their right to act in fear of liability ends at the physical boundaries of my body...
...Licenses should be lost over this. Rapists should not be permitted to continue practicing in the profession they used to commit the rape.
If I were in dude's shoes, I would have been throwing elbows, breaking jaws, gouging eyes, etc. The first penalty paid bythe bastards would have bee THEIR health & well-being.