26 replies to this topic

[beeseven]

http://www.wftv.com/...589/detail.html

Just after giving birth, a woman was transferred to a different hospital- which then took off her arms and legs. They refuse to tell her why, and say she'll have to sue them to get the answer. They say she had some weird disease, won't explain how she caught it. She cites a law that says they have to tell her, they don't because it would supposedly violate someone else's privacy.

[TeK FLaShOv3R]

beeseven, on Jan 25 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

http://www.wftv.com/...589/detail.html

Just after giving birth, a woman was transferred to a different hospital- which then took off her arms and legs. They refuse to tell her why, and say she'll have to sue them to get the answer. They say she had some weird disease, won't explain how she caught it. She cites a law that says they have to tell her, they don't because it would supposedly violate someone else's privacy.

wow that is horrible

[JasperIk]

Thats horrible! Is it true ?(well...heh you cant always trust things on the net...or really anywhere i guess)

Anyway that is just horrible, poor woman. But isnt it against the law not tell her why shes getting her arms and legs cut off?

And how does one wake up with no arms or legs, I'm really confused, did they put her to sleep after she had her baby? Can someone explain, maybe i just am not smart enough, to get it...Did they tell her she needs to get her arms and legs amputated, and then against her will take her off to the hospital? I would assume she would need to sign a contract telling them it is alright.

I don't know, its just horrible...

[eee]

wow thats really horrible. I think she should have right to know what kind of disease she has, and why they took her arms and legs. Its also sad cuz it happened right after she had a baby. i feel sad for her. Props on the info.

[Cerebral Stasis]

According to this article, the lady had streptococcus, which is a flesh-eating bacteria. However, it seems to me that such a think could be treated with penicillin. I have a feeling someone is going to lose their jobs and/or license over this one.

On an unrelated note, reading about how Streptococcus is spread (simply by touching things an infected person has touched) almost makes me understand how Monk feels.

[nykegodess]

JasperIk, on Jan 26 2006, 02:08 AM, said:

Thats horrible! Is it true ?(well...heh you cant always trust things on the net...or really anywhere i guess)

Anyway that is just horrible, poor woman. But isnt it against the law not tell her why shes getting her arms and legs cut off?

And how does one wake up with no arms or legs, I'm really confused, did they put her to sleep after she had her baby? Can someone explain, maybe i just am not smart enough, to get it...Did they tell her she needs to get her arms and legs amputated, and then against her will take her off to the hospital? I would assume she would need to sign a contract telling them it is alright.

I don't know, its just horrible...

it might not have happened u know ppl lie a lot, but if so i think if it is my country it would be said to a ritual killing and someone would probably burn the doctor before he get home that night

[Zythrix]

Well, I looked all around and, unfortunately, I've found nothing to call it a hoax. Things like this make me glad I tend to not leave my state. Oregon is a good place heh.

[Plenoptic]

Wow that is just wierd and sort of wrong. They can't just say "Oh well let's go cut off her legs and arms and tell her when she wakes up" Doesn't she have to give them permission and stuff and know what is going on. I guess if it was a real emergency they could have told her on the way what was going on and ask for more information but I wouldn't want them to make a huge decision like that for me. She won't even get to hold her baby. Rather scary I think.

[Cerebral Stasis]

It depends, Plenoptic. Since she would have been unconscious after childbirth, the doctors would not have had to ask her permission for a life-threatening disease. I am a lifeguard, and if one is in danger of dying but is conscious, one must ask the person drowning if he or she will allow the lifeguard to help (sounds stupid, I know, but it's to protect the lifeguard from lawsuits), but if the victim is unconscious, it is automatically as if the victim granted the lifeguard permission. The same would apply in this case. She had a life-threatening illness, but she was unconscious, so as such, the doctors did not have to wake her up to ask her permission, and the excuse that explaining would violate another patient's privacy is certainly legit, since there is a very strong rule concerning doctor-patient secrecies. I know that, in this case, it sounds very twisted, and it probably is, but from where I'm standing, it's all perfectly legal.

[Plenoptic]

This is true. I never really thought about it that way. I guess if it was life threatening then I would do the same but why won't they tell her anything. I think it is sort of stupid to not let her know what happened to her own body. It has to be really scary to go through this trying to figure out what in the world is going on.