Questions doctors ask.

[VMI77]

Could someone answer some of my questions?
• I have never sued a doctor but I wonder what the results would be if you answered yes.
• Would the doctor refuse to treat or even see you?
• What would the doctor do if you asked him if he has ever been sued and if so who prevailed?
• Is it legal for the doctor to ask this question?

I think it depends on the doctor. Years ago I flat out told a doctor that if the treatment he rendered hurt my child that I'd sue him, and refused to sign a form that relieved him of liability. I couldn't really tell much of a difference, though he may have been a little more careful in dealing with me after that. He didn't refuse treatment.

I think the doctors I go to would answer honestly if I asked if they'd ever been sued but I've never asked. With so many frivolous suits I don't think the fact that he'd been sued, or even sued and lost, would really tell me much. I judge by the treatment I get, not by what someone else thinks they should have gotten.

There is no such thing as a form that relieves a doctor from liability from a lawsuit. There are consent forms that must be signed for treatment and these are defined by the legislature. If someone threatened me with a lawsuit if there was a bad outcome I would tell him to hit the road.

I defer to your omniscience. Obviously you know of every form that is and could possibly be in existence. And if you told me to hit the road I would gladly do so, as I'd assume that you had no confidence in providing a good outcome.

[rotor]

Could someone answer some of my questions?
• I have never sued a doctor but I wonder what the results would be if you answered yes.
• Would the doctor refuse to treat or even see you?
• What would the doctor do if you asked him if he has ever been sued and if so who prevailed?
• Is it legal for the doctor to ask this question?

I think it depends on the doctor. Years ago I flat out told a doctor that if the treatment he rendered hurt my child that I'd sue him, and refused to sign a form that relieved him of liability. I couldn't really tell much of a difference, though he may have been a little more careful in dealing with me after that. He didn't refuse treatment.

I think the doctors I go to would answer honestly if I asked if they'd ever been sued but I've never asked. With so many frivolous suits I don't think the fact that he'd been sued, or even sued and lost, would really tell me much. I judge by the treatment I get, not by what someone else thinks they should have gotten.

There is no such thing as a form that relieves a doctor from liability from a lawsuit. There are consent forms that must be signed for treatment and these are defined by the legislature. If someone threatened me with a lawsuit if there was a bad outcome I would tell him to hit the road.

I defer to your omniscience. Obviously you know of every form that is and could possibly be in existence. And if you told me to hit the road I would gladly do so, as I'd assume that you had no confidence in providing a good outcome.

Without getting to personal here, let's say I was a surgeon and hypothetically the risk of dying from an appendectomy was 1 in 1000. Let's say I was the best surgeon in the world and your child needed an appendectomy. Let's say that everything went perfectly and still your child died from complications of the disease. There is a known risk, 1 in 1000 will die. All hypothetical of course, I don't know the numbers. You tell me ahead of time that you will sue me if your child dies and I will tell you to hit the road. I can't prevent the unforseen. I am not able to predict who will be the one in a thousand. All I can do is the best that I can do. I do know that I will not be threatened by anyone with the threat of a lawsuit if the results are not perfect. So, I will tell you to hit the road and find some other poor shnook who is willing to take care of your offspring under legal threat. All hypothetical of course. Is this how you normally treat your caregivers?

[VMI77]

Could someone answer some of my questions?
• I have never sued a doctor but I wonder what the results would be if you answered yes.
• Would the doctor refuse to treat or even see you?
• What would the doctor do if you asked him if he has ever been sued and if so who prevailed?
• Is it legal for the doctor to ask this question?

I think it depends on the doctor. Years ago I flat out told a doctor that if the treatment he rendered hurt my child that I'd sue him, and refused to sign a form that relieved him of liability. I couldn't really tell much of a difference, though he may have been a little more careful in dealing with me after that. He didn't refuse treatment.

I think the doctors I go to would answer honestly if I asked if they'd ever been sued but I've never asked. With so many frivolous suits I don't think the fact that he'd been sued, or even sued and lost, would really tell me much. I judge by the treatment I get, not by what someone else thinks they should have gotten.

There is no such thing as a form that relieves a doctor from liability from a lawsuit. There are consent forms that must be signed for treatment and these are defined by the legislature. If someone threatened me with a lawsuit if there was a bad outcome I would tell him to hit the road.

I defer to your omniscience. Obviously you know of every form that is and could possibly be in existence. And if you told me to hit the road I would gladly do so, as I'd assume that you had no confidence in providing a good outcome.

Without getting to personal here, let's say I was a surgeon and hypothetically the risk of dying from an appendectomy was 1 in 1000. Let's say I was the best surgeon in the world and your child needed an appendectomy. Let's say that everything went perfectly and still your child died from complications of the disease. There is a known risk, 1 in 1000 will die. All hypothetical of course, I don't know the numbers. You tell me ahead of time that you will sue me if your child dies and I will tell you to hit the road. I can't prevent the unforseen. I am not able to predict who will be the one in a thousand. All I can do is the best that I can do. I do know that I will not be threatened by anyone with the threat of a lawsuit if the results are not perfect. So, I will tell you to hit the road and find some other poor shnook who is willing to take care of your offspring under legal threat. All hypothetical of course. Is this how you normally treat your caregivers?

Yeah, but that's not the kind of situation I'm talking about. I'm talking about circumstances where the risks the doctor claimed and the risks claimed in various available public information were vastly different. Also, while among all doctors the hypothetical risk may be 1 in 1,000, the risk for a particular doctor could be much higher. If the doctor is claiming overall risk numbers as his own when his numbers are higher, that's fraud. Potentially lethal fraud.

Risk numbers are widely misused by doctors and the media. They will usually claim things like that if risk increases from 1 in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000, risk has increased by 50%, which is nonsense. While it may be true mathematically, it's a meaningless truth and grossly overstates the risk when it is stated without reference to the actual risk. But in the situation I was talking about I had a doctor claiming virtually zero risk when publicly available information put the risk as something more like between 1 in 100 to 1 in 10. Depending on the consequences, 1 in 100 maybe ok for your child, but when there is little to no compensating benefit, and the consequences are potentially life changing or life threatening, that kind of risk makes no sense to me. I wanted that doctor to know that if something bad happened as result of misleading information he gave me, and assurances contrary to other widely available information, there would be consequences.

[rotor]

Could someone answer some of my questions?
• I have never sued a doctor but I wonder what the results would be if you answered yes.
• Would the doctor refuse to treat or even see you?
• What would the doctor do if you asked him if he has ever been sued and if so who prevailed?
• Is it legal for the doctor to ask this question?

I think it depends on the doctor. Years ago I flat out told a doctor that if the treatment he rendered hurt my child that I'd sue him, and refused to sign a form that relieved him of liability. I couldn't really tell much of a difference, though he may have been a little more careful in dealing with me after that. He didn't refuse treatment.

I think the doctors I go to would answer honestly if I asked if they'd ever been sued but I've never asked. With so many frivolous suits I don't think the fact that he'd been sued, or even sued and lost, would really tell me much. I judge by the treatment I get, not by what someone else thinks they should have gotten.

There is no such thing as a form that relieves a doctor from liability from a lawsuit. There are consent forms that must be signed for treatment and these are defined by the legislature. If someone threatened me with a lawsuit if there was a bad outcome I would tell him to hit the road.

I defer to your omniscience. Obviously you know of every form that is and could possibly be in existence. And if you told me to hit the road I would gladly do so, as I'd assume that you had no confidence in providing a good outcome.

Without getting to personal here, let's say I was a surgeon and hypothetically the risk of dying from an appendectomy was 1 in 1000. Let's say I was the best surgeon in the world and your child needed an appendectomy. Let's say that everything went perfectly and still your child died from complications of the disease. There is a known risk, 1 in 1000 will die. All hypothetical of course, I don't know the numbers. You tell me ahead of time that you will sue me if your child dies and I will tell you to hit the road. I can't prevent the unforseen. I am not able to predict who will be the one in a thousand. All I can do is the best that I can do. I do know that I will not be threatened by anyone with the threat of a lawsuit if the results are not perfect. So, I will tell you to hit the road and find some other poor shnook who is willing to take care of your offspring under legal threat. All hypothetical of course. Is this how you normally treat your caregivers?

Yeah, but that's not the kind of situation I'm talking about. I'm talking about circumstances where the risks the doctor claimed and the risks claimed in various available public information were vastly different. Also, while among all doctors the hypothetical risk may be 1 in 1,000, the risk for a particular doctor could be much higher. If the doctor is claiming overall risk numbers as his own when his numbers are higher, that's fraud. Potentially lethal fraud.

Risk numbers are widely misused by doctors and the media. They will usually claim things like that if risk increases from 1 in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000, risk has increased by 50%, which is nonsense. While it may be true mathematically, it's a meaningless truth and grossly overstates the risk when it is stated without reference to the actual risk. But in the situation I was talking about I had a doctor claiming virtually zero risk when publicly available information put the risk as something more like between 1 in 100 to 1 in 10. Depending on the consequences, 1 in 100 maybe ok for your child, but when there is little to no compensating benefit, and the consequences are potentially life changing or life threatening, that kind of risk makes no sense to me. I wanted that doctor to know that if something bad happened as result of misleading information he gave me, and assurances contrary to other widely available information, there would be consequences.

Now we are talking about a different situation. Not to quible but if the risk went from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000 the risk doubled. I expect a doctor to go over the state mandated consent forms prior to a surgical procedure, not to relegate this to his nurse. I expect a doctor to explain in detail what the risks are including the fact that death is a risk. I want to know personally how many procedures the doctor has done, I want to know if he is board certified, I want to know (if I can find out) what the OR crew thinks of him. I want to know what my family doc thinks of him. What I don't want to do ahead of time is to threaten him ahead of time with a lawsuit if perfection is not accomplished in the OR. Most doctors that have been around have either developed a good reputation or a bad one. Find one with a good one. I try to stay away from people right out of training. Give them at least 5 years. People that move from town to town every 2-3 years are red flags. Doctors that sit down, talk in plain simple language, look you in the eyes and are straight shooters are the ones you want to use. The doctor looking at the computer screen, rushing you out of the office is not the one you want. The one that says "do you have any question?" is the one you want.

[G.A. Heath]

I was in the hospital one Christmas day, Annoyed (In amazingly sever pain), the surgeon comes in starts to rattle off the required legally required notifications, and then asks me if I know what is happening, what could happen, and what is likely to happen. My response was "I read the paperwork, I signed said paperwork, and I understand that I could die as a result of the surgery, I also know I will die if I do not receive it. With that acknowledged can we now get on with taking the risk that I could die before I actually do die while waiting for you to appease the litigation gods? But if it helps make them happy I promise that I will not sue should I actually die." She laughed, told me that was the best response she had ever received from someone in that much pain and she was actually surprised I was able to form and speak complete thoughts with that much pain. She also tried to convince me that needing a gall bladder removed was nearly as painful as having a child, as a guy I do not have a means of actually confirming that. Funny thing is, they put the surgery off until the next morning and we had to go through the whole thing again. My response that time can not be posted here due to the rules regarding language.

What I am getting at is that Doctors have legal issues they have to protect themselves from, and even then they try to protect themselves better than they are required to. It's kinda like having a CHL and carrying a backup gun.

[VMI77]

Could someone answer some of my questions?
• I have never sued a doctor but I wonder what the results would be if you answered yes.
• Would the doctor refuse to treat or even see you?
• What would the doctor do if you asked him if he has ever been sued and if so who prevailed?
• Is it legal for the doctor to ask this question?

I think it depends on the doctor. Years ago I flat out told a doctor that if the treatment he rendered hurt my child that I'd sue him, and refused to sign a form that relieved him of liability. I couldn't really tell much of a difference, though he may have been a little more careful in dealing with me after that. He didn't refuse treatment.

I think the doctors I go to would answer honestly if I asked if they'd ever been sued but I've never asked. With so many frivolous suits I don't think the fact that he'd been sued, or even sued and lost, would really tell me much. I judge by the treatment I get, not by what someone else thinks they should have gotten.

There is no such thing as a form that relieves a doctor from liability from a lawsuit. There are consent forms that must be signed for treatment and these are defined by the legislature. If someone threatened me with a lawsuit if there was a bad outcome I would tell him to hit the road.

I defer to your omniscience. Obviously you know of every form that is and could possibly be in existence. And if you told me to hit the road I would gladly do so, as I'd assume that you had no confidence in providing a good outcome.

Without getting to personal here, let's say I was a surgeon and hypothetically the risk of dying from an appendectomy was 1 in 1000. Let's say I was the best surgeon in the world and your child needed an appendectomy. Let's say that everything went perfectly and still your child died from complications of the disease. There is a known risk, 1 in 1000 will die. All hypothetical of course, I don't know the numbers. You tell me ahead of time that you will sue me if your child dies and I will tell you to hit the road. I can't prevent the unforseen. I am not able to predict who will be the one in a thousand. All I can do is the best that I can do. I do know that I will not be threatened by anyone with the threat of a lawsuit if the results are not perfect. So, I will tell you to hit the road and find some other poor shnook who is willing to take care of your offspring under legal threat. All hypothetical of course. Is this how you normally treat your caregivers?

Yeah, but that's not the kind of situation I'm talking about. I'm talking about circumstances where the risks the doctor claimed and the risks claimed in various available public information were vastly different. Also, while among all doctors the hypothetical risk may be 1 in 1,000, the risk for a particular doctor could be much higher. If the doctor is claiming overall risk numbers as his own when his numbers are higher, that's fraud. Potentially lethal fraud.

Risk numbers are widely misused by doctors and the media. They will usually claim things like that if risk increases from 1 in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000, risk has increased by 50%, which is nonsense. While it may be true mathematically, it's a meaningless truth and grossly overstates the risk when it is stated without reference to the actual risk. But in the situation I was talking about I had a doctor claiming virtually zero risk when publicly available information put the risk as something more like between 1 in 100 to 1 in 10. Depending on the consequences, 1 in 100 maybe ok for your child, but when there is little to no compensating benefit, and the consequences are potentially life changing or life threatening, that kind of risk makes no sense to me. I wanted that doctor to know that if something bad happened as result of misleading information he gave me, and assurances contrary to other widely available information, there would be consequences.

Now we are talking about a different situation. Not to quible but if the risk went from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000 the risk doubled. I expect a doctor to go over the state mandated consent forms prior to a surgical procedure, not to relegate this to his nurse. I expect a doctor to explain in detail what the risks are including the fact that death is a risk. I want to know personally how many procedures the doctor has done, I want to know if he is board certified, I want to know (if I can find out) what the OR crew thinks of him. I want to know what my family doc thinks of him. What I don't want to do ahead of time is to threaten him ahead of time with a lawsuit if perfection is not accomplished in the OR. Most doctors that have been around have either developed a good reputation or a bad one. Find one with a good one. I try to stay away from people right out of training. Give them at least 5 years. People that move from town to town every 2-3 years are red flags. Doctors that sit down, talk in plain simple language, look you in the eyes and are straight shooters are the ones you want to use. The doctor looking at the computer screen, rushing you out of the office is not the one you want. The one that says "do you have any question?" is the one you want.

BTW, I'm not suit happy. Doctors killed my 86 year old father, and we could probably have sued at least twice, probably three times, but didn't. Their incompetence sent him into a death spiral, starting when they coerced him into a stress test that resulted in a heart attack, and then tore up his esophagus during a totally unnecessary procedure. Next, about a year later, after several stays in ICU, they destroyed his remaining kidney by giving him the wrong drug. It was all down hill from there.

[rotor]

VMI77
Sorry about the bad experience your dad had. I hope that you can find a better physician when you need medical help.