I found this one this morning... Section Three- Patient Care When I find things like this which outline what I *should* have had and compare it to the high handed and illegal treatment I was subjected to, it irks me! Here's a quote from the article;
"For all procedures performed in the angiography lab, informed consent must be obtained. This is a form that the patient must sign stating that the procedure has been explained to him or her. This form includes the procedure and possible complications. The patient must also be given the opportunity to have all of his or her questions answered. That is why it is called informed consent. The patient should be consented by the physician performing the procedure, and someone who is not part of the team performing the procedure should witness the consent. Consents may also be oral. Oral consents are done when the patient is unable to sign (for example, he or she is paralyzed and doesn't have use of the writing hand). Click here for an example of an Informed Consent. If the patient is unable to give consent it may be given by the next of kin or, in a medical emergency, by the chief of staff.
Prior to the exam, the physician performing the procedure reviews the patient's history and physical (H & P). The physician will also review the indications and any contraindications that the patient may have to the procedure. The patient's labs are also reviewed. Common labs are CBC, BUN, CREAT, GLUCOSE, PT/INR, and PTT."
[Informed consent] "...is a form that the patient must sign stating that the procedure has been explained to him or her." So far so good, I was tricked into signing this, but here is the rest of it! The part that was completely omitted by my employees. "This form includes the procedure and possible complications." Oops! My form didn't have a single word about this kind of stuff! My alleged "informed consent" is here on my blog, go look! Let's see what else was left out... "opportunity to have all of his or her questions answered?" I don't think so! The form I got SAYS that I did, but once again, it's not true.
"The patient should be consented by the physician performing the procedure...!" My surgeon never showed up prior to surgery at all, let alone got any kind of consent. I admit that his PA was there, somebody I had never met, didn't recognise as my surgeon and did NOT hire to do my surgery. He never answered any questions at all! How was I to know that he was even supposed to answer any questions? He never identified himself. Maybe so that I WOULDN'T ask any questions? Maybe to hide the fact that my surgeon had fobbed me off on him and that a PA was going to do the surgery? Next item.
"...someone who is not a part of the team performing the procedure should witness the consent." The sneaky, lying little nurse who witnessed me signing a paper (definitely NOT an informed consent) was a part of the team performing the procedure. She was very accomplished at getting patients to sign documents which were unrecognisable as an informed consent. It looked like a blood transfusion consent to me and she made SURE that that is what I thought it was. It's here, go look at it!
ORAL CONSENT! Here is where my medical team made its most egregious steps into felonious behavior. My crna went right on ahead with what he wanted to do, regardless of my instructions. He claimed I made an "oral consent" by not objecting. Oral consent is only available to medical practitioners if the patient cannot sign the consent. Drugging me so that I would be unable to sign a consent, or even object, while knowing full well I would NEVER HAVE CONSENTED to his plans and never did, is unconscionable. The other part of this is; why did this snotty little cretin have to say I gave consent by not objecting, if I had signed a true consent prior to beginning as the law states. In the records of the complaint, he even omitted that I was drugged with Versed prior to "not objecting." Nowhere is it recorded that I emphatically declined the very things he did to me over my objections. Oh, he knew what he was doing.
At the bottom it says that "the physician (not the PA or the OR nurse or the crna) will also review the indications or contraindications that the patient may have to the procedure." IF my surgeon had decided to grace me with his presence we would have had the same discussion that I had with the nurses, the high and mighty anesthesia nurse and that PA that I failed to recognise as my new surgeon. We had already had the discussion in his office, but apparently he needed to be reminded that sedation and general anesthetic were out of the question. (hence a "review" as the article states) So was having a PA performing my intricate surgery. So was having an inexperienced nurse doing a nerve block, let alone that damn sedation and general anesthetic which I had declined.
I guess I should be grateful that there are some medical treatment centers that actually have an informed informed consent!
No comments:
Post a Comment