Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Informed Consent?

What does informed consent REALLY mean? Do you think that it means what it was meant for? Does it mean that you the patient get to discuss your treatment and decide for yourself whether you want this? Whether the risks out weigh the benefits? Do YOU get to decide to decline certain parts of the treatment? Do you get the opportunity to sign out AMA instead of going through with it? Are you truly informed about the risks or are you just told what the medical providers want you to know? Can you STOP them at any time? All of these questions are part of the informed consent laws that are totally lost in medical care these days.

Here is what Informed Consent means today; They tell you an abridged version of your procedure omitting anything that would make you say no. You sign it without knowing a damned thing. Informed Consent! They will tell you "I don't have time to tell you every little thing." "That was the (interchangeable person other than themselves) job." "That side effect has never happened before." Oh there are endless excuses for the hapless patient. By the way, these excuses are not only lies, but they are totally in defiance of informed consent laws.

Here are some other misconceptions about "informed Consent." Informed consent is where we medical people get to inform the patient to whatever degree we feel won't upset the patient and the patient consents. WORSE YET; The medical people get to play psychic! They get to decide that you would have gone ahead with your procedure EVEN IF THEY HAD TOLD YOU THE TRUTH! Can you believe it! No wonder most of them are arrogant! YOU have to PROVE that you would have declined the treatment if they had explained it. Even if you say no very loud and clear, they can still dispense with informed consent on the premise that you really would have agreed, if only they had the time to explain it to you.

Here are some of the excuses from my own experience. "I didn't have time to explain it." You don't want to feel the pain." This is true, I don't want to feel pain. However I don't want amnesia to trick me into thinking there was no pain. See the difference? They have pain medication, which I wanted. They had amnesia drugs which I clearly did not want. They knew perfectly well that I didn't want to be knocked silly or out.

My CRNA, the omnipotent God, "read my mind" and decided that I truly did want amnesia and general anesthetic. He pushed his own desires off on me, pretending that he only had my best interests at heart. He lied to me about Versed. He pretended to go along with my statements declining this kind of drug and declining the general anesthetic. This totally pisses me off. If you are reading this and recognise me little CRNA, you are not psychic. I hate you for degrading me and treating me like a dog. I absolutely despise you! This man is a brutal dictator once he has a helpless patient. Don't let him work on you if you want that "patient autonomy" which is the law. Don't let him touch you, he will defy you and fail to get an informed consent. Don't let him fool you. This man needs to work at Gitmo. Better yet he needs to be in jail.

The sad part is that Aaron is not alone in his thinking. This attitude is pervasive. "We don't work in a vacuum" is what one person said in defence of their practice of deceiving the patient. This person claims that no violation of the patient can occur because there are so many people involved with the patients care. This is false. These people are in collusion to deprive you of your patient rights.

Another problem is their claim that they are "treating patients with respect." Using a drug like Versed to gain compliance and forcing the patient to be obedient against their will is NOT respectful. I don't give a damn how the anesthesia provider or surgeon SAYS that they are respectful, if they are giving you drugs against your will this is a violation. Just like rape folks. We said NO. Just because we were unable to vocalize our objections, or were ignored because you think we lack capacity once you inject us with Versed, that does NOT mean that you have our permission to continue!

Informed consent should mean that we are told what the drugs are and the plan of our surgery. This would include a description of the amnesia, obedience, the inability to object once sedated with Versed. Also included should be the fact that the care providers can't tell if you have amnesia, the fail rate, (10%) and that if the amnesia doesn't work that you will be tortured and unable to stop the procedure.

We should also have a description of the surgery, including negative side effects. We should be told where the incision is going to be, how long our convalescence will be, what complications COULD happen. It would be nice to know the rate of complication for the particular surgeon, but since we can't even get what the LAW REQUIRES in regard to informed consent, good luck with this.

If you do not get an informed consent that says anything except for "I consent to the surgery and anything that the Doctor needs or wants to do" run, not walk to the nearest exit. This is a torture chamber and these people have zero respect for you. They are already in violation of the law. Don't stay it will only get worse.

If you get an informed consent that goes on and on about "blood products" or "living will" on the page and one tiny paragraph at the bottom about submitting to the surgery, don't sign it. They will trick you with this document and you will find out after that you actually signed a consent, not for blood products or the living will, but anything at all that the surgeon wants. There is a reason they sneak this into something that seems innocuous!

In my case there was a blurb about the surgery at the bottom of the blood products page. Most of the page concerned blood transfusions, which was explained in detail. Not explained and unnoticed by me was the surgery consent at the bottom. There was no explanation of conscious sedation, no mention of general anesthetic or risks of these things. Nothing concerning the surgery itself, no side effects, nothing. This is against the law, but it doesn't matter. By law the surgeon must see the patient before surgery to go over the risks and benefits of the surgery and get his own informed consent signed. This step is often eliminated.

If you don't get a separate form, if you don't see anything about conscious sedation, amnesia etc., if you haven't seen the surgeon in the hospital, get out of there. My surgeon never showed up until I was already in the OR. He never explained anything to me at all.

The CRNA chose not to reveal that he was going to force me to endure whatever he wanted. He also chose not to get informed consent at all because he already knew that I couldn't do anything about it. He attacked me and humiliated me with impunity. The informed consent law did not protect me. Don't let them get away with saying they "don't have time" to explain anything, they are in a rush to get you to the surgeon. This is against the law. They have to explain it to you regardless of time restraints, it's the law. Question everything. If they seem cagey, leave and reschedule the surgery.

It is my belief that my surgeon Dr. Frankenstein chose not to see me in advance because he didn't want me to turn down the surgery. He needed more practice at this particular surgery and knew that I would not allow him to knock me out. He did send in his PA, Traitor, who couldn't answer any questions. (Traitor also referred to me as "it." This is also a red flag.) This is all in violation of patient rights laws.

People the only way we are going to get true informed consent is to petition our elected officials about it. Hospitals are truly rogue institutions. We need to assert our rights not to be given treatment without explanation. We have rights, you need to know them and you need to know what the informed consent is required by law to have in it.

1 comment: