"My recently released report on Gisborne Hospital makes it quite clear that a practitioner's sincere belief that treatment would be in the patient's best interest is no excuse for treating a patient without informed consent. The following case study is based on one of the incidents discussed in the Gisborne Hospital Report.
A patient booked for surgery at Gisborne Hospital advised her anaesthetist that she had experienced a serious adverse reaction to the anaesthetic drug fentanyl in 1981. She specifically requested that she not be administered fentanyl again. The consultant believed that her previous reaction to fentanyl had been due to an overdose, and not a true allergic reaction. He decided to re-expose her to fentanyl in a closely controlled environment in order to establish whether she was in fact truly allergic to it because he believed that "it was not in the patient's best interests to spend the rest of her life not having fentanyl available to her". The anaesthetist administered fentanyl and the patient did not show any signs of allergy. The anaesthetist was found to have breached right 7 of the Code by administering fentanyl to a patient in the face of her specific refusal to consent to such administration."
Personally I love Fentanyl. However it is within this patients rights to have her "allergy" respected, not to be used as a guinea pig for an over bearing anesthesia provider to subject her to additional risk to prove to themselves that the patient is in error. My God, it's hard to understand the mind set of a medical person who so far forgot themselves as to experiment with a patient! It happens often, I have another post on this subject with quotes from http://www.allnurses.com/ about patient "allergies." SHE SAID "NO" YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO GAINSAY THAT!!!!
Here's the next excerpt; I have emphasized some of this as it follows what happened to a lot of us...
"Anaesthetists: "Guidelines on providing information about anaesthesia" (1994). Specifically the complaint was that the doctor did not allow sufficient time to read a consent form, administered midazolam to the patient without her consent, and was aggressive and rude.
A patient attended a pre-assessment anaesthetic clinic appointment where it was noted that she had a past history of addiction to benzodiazepine and was concerned about the choice of anaesthetic. She did not want drugs from the benzodiazepine family. In the theatre reception just prior to her surgery the consumer met another anaesthetist, who checked her notes, took her medical history and asked her to sign an anaesthetic form. This was the first time the consumer was made aware she had to sign a separate form for anaesthesia. Some discussion of her reluctance to use an oxygen mask occurred and she repeated her concerns about certain drugs being used. The anaesthetist explained the safety record of the drugs in question and the patient was taken into theatre. He reported that the patient appeared extremely anxious and that there was very little time for the consultation to take place. The patient, noticing she was being administered a drug, asked the anaesthetist to tell her what drug she was receiving. The request was initially ignored. The patient became distressed and repeated the request, which was then answered. The drug, midazolam, was a short-acting benzodiazepine that the anaesthetist believed had no risk attached to it and would help to relax an anxious patient. He proceeded to administer it on the basis that it was in her best interests. The anaesthetist was found in breach of rights 5(1), 6(2) and 7(1) by failing to effectively communicate with the consumer, by failing to enable the consumer to make an informed choice, and by administering midazolam without her consent."
Pretty self explanatory and pretty much like *I* experienced, right down to the phony "appeared anxious" and the idea that the anesthetist administered a drug which the patient had declined on the flawed premise that "it was in her best interests." What in the patients best interest is that their instructions are followed without any second guessing by arrogant anesthesia staff. Why is this so unclear to our so-called health care professionals? Either one of these examples of egregious meddling by uncaring staff should be enough to make everybody realize that there are 2 separate agendas at the point of treatment. Yours and THEIRS! Be very cautious in dealing with these tricksters.
For more information please read the "rest of the story" on the link I provided. THANKS SO MUCH TO MY NEW READER. I am very sorry that you had such a bad experience that you had to come here, but thanks for the help.
No comments:
Post a Comment