Don't touch me there: NY jury rejects rectal exam lawsuit

AP via Yahoo

NEW YORK - A hospital did nothing wrong when it tried to examine the rectum of a construction worker who had been hit on the head by a falling wooden beam, a jury found Monday.

After deliberating for about an hour, a state Supreme Court jury awarded nothing to Brian Persaud, who sued NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital for unspecified damages. The panel found the hospital and its emergency room medical staff were not liable.

snip

Marrone said Persaud, 38, was injured while working at a construction site in midtown Manhattan on May 20, 2003. Persaud received eight stitches for a cut over his eyebrow at the hospital, but denied emergency room staffers' request to examine his rectum, the lawyer said. He said doctors told Persaud the exam could help determine whether the accident caused spinal damage.

When Persaud resisted, staffers held him down while he begged, "Please don't do that," Marrone said. Persaud hit a doctor while flailing around, so the staffers gave him a powerful sedative and performed the rectal exam, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_re_us/unwanted_exam_5">Complete article

If he had gone home and died or developed paralysis, his survivors would have sued for millions.

The hospital had to protect itself from a lawsuit and they have an obligation to administer a medically necessary examination.

"Don't touch me there!" Give me a break!

As fucking stupid as this guy is if I tell a doctor I don't want him to do something to me he has no right to do it.

I can't believe anyone would support this.

he most likely authorized the physicians to perform all necessary treatment with his signature on the form.

That's makes sense!

Who let you in here?

When patients refuse medical care they are given release forms to sign. It protects hospitals from being sued by the patient.

This guy should have won his lawsuit because he refused medical care and they forced it on him against his consent.

by preforming something completely unnecessary. Just how much do the exam and sedative cost him?

It sounds to me like a situation getting totally out of hand by all sides involved.

And had they not done the test, and he ended up paralyzed, maybe he could have been arguing they were negligent.

The beam hit him on the head!

People here seem to be forgetting that part.

Or, maybe everyone has been so conditioned to think that people who've been hit on the head is not such a bad thing.

If a patient refuses care they can sign a waiver or a release form. It prevents a patient from suing the hospital even though they refused medical care.

A adult is allowed to refuse all and any medical treatment

Like, say, someone suffering from getting hit in the head by a fucking beam?

No shit.

Apparently, there are a lot of head-smacking beams going on here.

PB

They're like opposite ends of the spectrum.

Unless you are incapacitated, medical providers have to obtain consent before performing care. You can revoke that consent at any time. It sounds like he did so.

I'm not saying that the exam wasn't medically a good idea, but I do question the idea that the hospital can do so on a lucid, non-impaired patient without informed consent or a court order.

It's like Gitmo healthcare comes to America. :wow:

If a patient says "Don't touch me there," then any touching is assault and battery...

Any touching...

He has the right to refuse...

:shrug:

/grasping at straws.

He still has the right to refuse...

He was hit on the head. They could argue he wasn't in his right mind and it was the Doctors responsibility to check him out. Doctor's are in a VERY tough position here. The big baby didn't want a finger in his bottom? Please.....

Would you be OK with that if it were the TSA instead of a doctor?

Putting a finger in your bottom requires your consent. Consent can be considered implied if you are incapacitated/unconscious or are sufficiently impaired, but if you are lucid, consent is required, and you can revoke it at any time.

I'm not saying the test wasn't a good idea, and I would have consented to it. But I do hold that the guy had a right to refuse the test if he chose.

Thank you...I know I'm right about this...

It was drummed into our heads in nursing school...

We are always in the right to decide for ourselves what and when we agree or decide not to agree with any medical proceedure. how is this different than rape?

...but it's VERY different from rape.

A rapist doesn't approach a victim with the victim's wellbeing in mind. The doctors and medical staff, however, probably believed they were doing what was best for the patient.

That said, I am pretty surprised by the outcome of this one...

My bottom line is that people have an absolute right to refuse to have things done to their bodies. A violation of your body is a violation of your body.

...but malicious intent is an aspect of the crime of rape. If the doctors were acting on their best medical judgment, but acted negligently with regard to the proper procedures for denying treatment, it's pretty hard for me to call this a rape.

The doctors and nurses are trained professionals.

They knew what they were doing was best for the patient.

He probably signed a paper when he was checked in allowing the trained medical staff to perform any medical procedures they and their training deemed necessary.

Oh, and who do you think you are, coming in here and using a rational argument to make a distinction between real rape and message board accusations of rape? Huh, punk? Are you trying to unGodwin this thread? (what's the rape equivalent to Hitler/Godwin?)

All kidding aside, what kind of country have we become when we automatically think the absolute worst of people? There are so many cases of actual abuse by doctors and nurses, but that doesn't mean every doctor or nurse is going to harm someone.

This guy got his hearing, he is not paralyzed and as a result of the sensationalism surrounding his pristine anus, medical professionals everywhere will question their instincts for the betterment of everyone everywhere!

Bunnies!

Whatever issues you may have about forcibly putting your finger up other people's rectums, I hope you manage to work them out before any serious damage is done.

Peace.

...that doctors don't only have to be perfect doctors these days, but also perfect lawyers? Anyway, I mean the only possible explanation for this is that the moneygrubbing doctors wanted to do an unnecessary rectal exam so they could get all that $$$ they charge for such a high-tech and expensive procedure. Also, I just KNOW they got off on knocking this guy out and getting all up in his butt. Those greedy, filthy perverts!

...that only specialists can do it, and with all those new high-tech gadgets that are so expensive and hard to find...

Speaking of greedy, you just know that construction worker is trawling the ERs looking for some action...

Hey - he might be a Republican...ya never know!


;)

And they sedated him and did the exam against his wishes? Appeal. I bet if he didn't have insurance they wouldn't have even mentioned the rectal exam.

Maybe?

I was just going to post the exact same thing.

I thought they took xrays for that sort. The doctor has his head up his ass. I would have refused too. Fucking doctors trying to run up the insurance bill.

nobody asked to check my rectum, nor was it checked. That makes no sense at all. The rectum is not connected to the spine.

A rectal exam to check for spinal damage? LOL! Give me a break. No medical person would ever do something so stupid. I worked in an ER for years, and that would never happen. He'd have been sent for x-rays. And there is no way ANY refused procedure would be done. Something is very fishy here.

Having said all that...it's a freakin' rectal exam! What's the big deal? They are part of every physical. What's with this guy?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222008/news/regionalnews/out_on_his_butt_107509.htm

It sounds like there might have been some confusing testimony with more than two different sides of a story. It wouldn't have happened at the ER's I've worked at, but I don't think this guy is totally faultless either.

The jury may have determined nobody gets nothing and everyone needs to go home.

Spinal damage to S3-S4 will cause laxity of the rectum and is a sign of a spinal emergency requiring immediate surgical attention. If there is a question of spinal damage any doctor failing to do this would find himself with a seriously indefensible lawsuit.

Whatever work you did in the ER certainly doesn't qualify you as an ER physician. (having been an ER physician, I think I can make this statement with confidence).

GK

Good luck convincing this doctor-hating litigenous crown what good, thorough clinical medicine looks like.

When done against someone's will.

:hi: There are some doctors and other medical people here. My hubby's an internist, so while I'm not a medical person, I try to defend them when I can. :)

The Scaral level is at the bottom of the spine. I am very glad you were not the ER physician when I had my injury.

me of a joke, ironically about an American tourist visiting the England, who found it very difficult to persuade a waiter at his hotel that he really didn't want the Brown Windsor soup, no matter how fervently and repeatedly he recommended it.

In the early hours of the morning, a couple of nurses mistook him for a sick patient of theirs staying at the hotel in another room, swiftly woke him up and before he knew what was going on, rammed a syringe up his backside and injected him with an enema.

The next day, when he was talking to a fellow American tourist he had just met, he told him that there wasn't a lot of advice he could give him, but the limeys were all barking mad, and whatever he did, if he was offered Brown Windsor soup by the waiter, he should make damn sure he accepted it or they'd break into his room in the middle of the night and ram it right up his ass!

From what I understand, what the doctors did was normal, just not something non-medical people would know about since TV doesn't discuss it.

What kind of idiot has an ego so fragile that he won't allow a routine medical procedure in order to protect his delicate masculinity?

on profit-driven grounds? If he had been a "suit" and looked a professional or managerial type, do you not think they would have been highly likely to leave him to his folly?

I recognize what you posted as words, but I don't understand what you're saying.

They are doctors, he is a patient. Just because he doesn't understand what they're doing to his precious, doesn't mean they don't have the right to do their job.

If he doesn't want emergency room doctors to help him, then he shouldn't get hurt.

must accept whatever treatment is specified for him. Even if he were a masochist and actually wanted to get hurt in the first place! What sort of a topsy-turvy, Orwellian dystopia do you live in? Would they have checked if he had a credit or debit card, first? Would they have insisted on it if he had been a homeless person?

Decades ago I read that there were a lot of "sick" physicians in the US who urged patients to have unnecessary operations(!) just so that they themselves could maintain the quality of their life-style! If I had to receive medical treatment from you, I'd be scared witless. Physicians are supposed to be very intelligent, but your misunderstanding of the nub of this issue is scary.

Would you have insisted on treating a patient if he had been another physician who declined your good offices? I think not.

Relax, take a deep breath and think about what kind of road you're headed down and know I'm not going with you.

I'd like to know what kind of world you live in where just because one set of people (republicans) break the law and abuse their power, everyone does?

It's an emergency room. If he was in his right mind, he would have requested to sign something.

Why didn't he ask, "what are you doing?" Or, "I know my rights, if you don't stop, I'll get a lawyer!" (Or did he think of that one after he walked out of the hospital, told his friends the doctor checked him for blood and possible spinal damage and being the trained medical professionals that they are laughed at him?)

Certainly he can refuse any medical treatment he doesn't want, but he could also have been reasonable and asked to sign a waiver or something.

digital examination, it's about you rambling on about the man's need to fill in a form, for crying out loud.

He could have done a million things, but why should he have filled in one one of their damned forms to certify what he expressed to them by simple word of mouth? Was English a foreign language to the medical staff.

"I'd like to know what kind of world you live in where just because one set of people (republicans) break the law and abuse their power, everyone does?"

No. But you seem to think it's OK if your pals in the medical profession do. I'm waiting for your answers about whether you or your confreres would impose your "treatment" on a professional person or an indigent. Or insisting that they fill in a form!

"Certainly he can refuse any medical treatment he doesn't want,...". Gee whizz. Now you say he could have refused teatment he didn't want! HE DID!!!!! And you then try to cover your tracks with this nonsense about waivers, etc. Go back to sleep. There's a good chap.

Ironically, you've been going round and round in ever-decreasing circles until you ended up disappearing up your own backside!

His word of mouth, then he needs to prove he said that.

Why didn;t he just ask to sign a waiver?

And, strange to relate, I don't think the US is quite there yet. No thanks to you, I might addd.

What are you trying to say here?

These are words, I recognize them, but they make no sense.

Have you presumed something then let your emotions run wild all over your keyboard?

If you have a question, calm down first. Then type your question. Preview it first, read it out loud and listen to it to see if it doesn't sound idiotic, then post it.

I can't respond to your post if you're not making sense.



You claim he refused treatment, do you have any proof? He claimed he said something, does he have any proof?

Maybe he should have asked for a waiver.

He. is. under. no. obligation. to. justify. his. refusal. He. was. not. a. criminal.

There is no potential crime involved, on his part, requiring written proof of anything. He.was at perfect liberty to simply walk out of that clinic without saying another word. NO CRIME WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

He, however, he was physically assaulted and drugged. It was clearly a form of unlawful detention with violence. And he would doubtless have had to pay for the privilege!

...but he WOULD have needed to sign a waiver promising the hospital that they would not be SUED if he should develop any complications that might stem from his refusal of their recommended treatment. It's totally common.

Neither the hospital nor the patient acted right in the case. Who did worse? The hospital, to be sure. He should've been OFFERED a waiver when he refused treatment. He would've made his mark on it, left the place, and been happy (assuming he didn't have any injuries that he had just signed away his right to sue over).

I think what you mean is not that "...he WOULD have needed to sign a waiver", but that the hospital MIGHT have needed him to do so, for their own administrative purposes.

Tough cheese! That should have been one in the chops for them, on behalf of those who can't afford to pay for health insurance. Have you become so inured to the corporations imposing their will on you, as though it were the law of the land, that you would sign your democracy away on the grounds that it's COMMON?

I was harrassed today by a couple of recorded phone messages in an American accent. Normally, I love those accents, but in connection with selling, business, commerce, they're like red rag to a bull. That's the ultimate insult. Having seen/heard telephonists replaced by endless, press-button permutations when you try to speak to someone in a company, to have a disembodied foreign voice cold-calling me to pitch some corporate spiel to me was the last straw.

He. Was. Taken. To. A. Hospital. With. A. Head. Injury.

If. He. Doesn't. Want. To. Live. In. A. Country. Where. People. Will. Try. To. Provide. Medical. Care. On. His. Behalf. After. His. Head. Injury. He. Can. Move. To. Ayn. Rand. World.

As. Far. As. "Justifying". His. Alleged. Refusal. He's. Going. To. Have. To. Prove. He. Refused. It. First.

Who. Took. Him. To. The. Hospital?

Why. Didn't. He. Refuse. Treatment. Then?

Just. Because. You. Suffered. An. Injury.

I think the doc in question should go get himself a job at Gitmo, and leave civilized society behind, since he is obviously unable to live within its constraints.

...and you're comparing it to Gitmo?

Have you gone mad, man!?

Exaggerate much?

Your troll-fu is strong, but this is ridiculous.

drugging him for the purpose, when he presumed to resist, would sound like Gitmo to most of us, Dumbo. Though Gitmo is actually "lawful", now, it seems - even without the help of a dim jury.

can only read texts written for adults. And even when you try to do that, the substance of your text is just a string of non sequiturs. It has been from the start of our wee colloquy. Never mind. All come out in the wash. Just you go back to sleep now, there's a good chap.

"necessary". I have two good friends who are sports medicine doctors, and they would NEVER order a rectal exam for a cut over the eyebrow! I don't think that this has anything to do with being "macho". I think the guy was doing what any thinking person would do; object to an exam of any body part that is completely unrelated to the injured body part. If you slashed your hand on a lawn mower blade would you submit to a CAT scan of your skull? No, because you don't want any doctor ripping you off!

...it's a good thing he didn't receive any trauma to a part of his body that matters.

parallel possible. Well done.

A European doctor and his/her staff would have spoken to him gently, explaining to him what the connection was between his rectum and his spine in this instance, and advised him that it was worth a few moment's embarrassment. Not that I think for a moment that he would have found it anything more than mildly embarrassing - if indeed that. But it seems no-one bothered to explain that there was an actual connection. If the doctor then said he really did fear more damage might have been done than was apparent, but in a society where your credit is checked before you are treated even in an EMERGENCY, I think citizens can be forgiven for mistrusting the men in white coats, when they offer treatment that sounds, prima facie, totally loony.

You work in a highly questionable profession in the US, and, now, an unambiguously authoritarian society, and it seems you don't even know it. Don't have a clue. Or maybe manual workers are kind of ... well.. people you can tell what to do. Or else. Is that it? Because that sure is the impression you give, for all your jokey talk about people's squirming about digital examinations. It took you 2 or 3 posts to admit the man was fully entitled to decline treatment verbally, and then rambled on about forms and waivers.

Are you posting to the correct thread?

Seriously, calm down.

Speak in complete sentences.

Copy and paste the stuff you're replying to.

No one really expects perfect spelling and grammar, but you can at least try to express a coherent idea here; this isn't Free Republic or Little Green Footballs.

first language either. Why didn't you say so in the first place. We could have made certain.. ahem... allowances.

Is this a joke?

Are you trying to be funny?

Change the subject?

Distract from your previous incoherent posts?

Insult me?



Hahahaha! That's funny!

Okay, that's enough from you.

Unless you're going to start making sense, I'm going to have to laugh at everything you say.

A rectal exam is part of a complete physical exam. Mental status abnormalities warrant a complete exam.
Then again-I don't know if I qualify as a "reputable" doctor.

It's hard to prove who knows what they're talking about on a message board.

Today it looks like everyone is a Constitutional expert.

That must be one of the dumbest pronouncements ever made on DU.

"I recognize what you posted as words, but I don't understand what you're saying."

There's an awful lot you don't understand, it seems; one being plain English. Oops! Should I have filled out a form before writing that.

when he was checked in.

:eyes:

are considered to be acceptable forms of behavior from our medical community.

each day. That jury was unforgivably stupid.

A competent adult has the right to control over his or her body, no matter how bad a judgement somebody else thinks he's exercizing. Perhaps the guy would have accepted the exam if the doc had bothered to explain the reasoning, perhaps not. In any event, he has an absolute right to refuse.

Why didn't he do that?

It doesn't sound like he was given any time for anything like that.

He had time to get violent with one of the doctors. Why didn't he have time to ask for a waiver?

They were already holding him down while he screamed “Please don’t do that.” Maybe they could have offered him a waiver before holding him down.

authorizing the staff to perform all necessary treatment/tests.

next time you go to a hospital for a procedure- read ALL the fine print in what they ask you to sign to be admitted.

it would not have taken the jury an hour to come to a decision. You apologists for this scandalous behaviour should think things through before rushing to defend the indefensible. Question all? You haven't begun to question.

Unless you can prove it wasn't brought up during trial, I think you're mistaken.

I can see the medics now around your death-bed. Yes... a sad case... He was trained as a physician, you know... But his thirst for proof about everything eventually took him over completely and he died raving about this lack of proof about everything he felt so keenly.

And the coroner will remark that the condition had hitherto been unknown to medical science, and that, in the circumstances, all he felt competent to enter for the record was: "Attorney manque".

Only an hour? To decide on the merits of a putative case, in which the plaintiff had signed away his rights in the matter....? If they had all suffered from a fairly advanced form of dementia, I dare say, it might have been possible.

...is there a point in there somewhere?

If you were charged with being coherent, would there be any proof?

Though your "proof" mania keeps me in stitches, so I shouldn't complain. (chortle, chortle)

if it only took the jury an hour to reach a decision AGAINST the plaintiff- he obviously signed away some authority at the hospital.

IF this happened, you don't sign your life away at the front door to the hospital. I don't authorize brain surgery UNLESS I am incompetent and CANNOT agree COMPETENTLY to something that a doctor is telling me is necessary. Hi, CanuckSawbones, as a Lawyer, I have this argument with doctors frequently since I have a serious illness. If my own physician is not on call, the Doctor usually stands at the doorway, with the first question being, so you are a lawyer? At a minimum, a second waiver should have been signed the minute the guy said NO.

you know for a fact that he didn't sign a waiver authorizing all medically necessary tests and treatment?

I don't know why anyone should be force to have his/her anus checked against his/her will.

Why did they not offer him a waiver to sign?

How would a construction worker know about medical waivers? How would he know to ask to sign one?

...construction worker or not.

There's still 25% of the population that doesn't know Bush is a homicidal idiot.

On edit: Given the level of iatrogenic harm in medicine today there are a lot of people who think keeping as far away from doctors as possible is the best way of staying healthy.

If an apple a day keeps the doctor away..

They'll soon be condemned by the AMA.

...but one does not need to be in the medical field to know about paperwork.

The guy might even be functionally illiterate.. About 20% of the population are.

It's what the Homosexual Agenda does when ordinary recruitment does not work.

Apparently the doctor was hoping this guy didn't know.

But he knows, Dr. Queerfinger, he knows.

And now, thanks to this brave construction worker, all of America knows!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If there'd been spinal damage, he would've sued them for not doing the exam.

Can't we talk about something interesting??

he could try to sue, but it would be pretty tough. At that point, the hospital is informing you, we think you have an emergency, you are rejecting medical care, and endangering your health and WE ARE WARNING YOU. The Second Waiver is pretty clear. After all, the hospital does have lawyers to protect it against lawsuits. And it is really not up to the patient to protect the hospital. The Hospital is very clear on this.

I just had this happen to myself. I had to go to the emergency room and the Doctor refused to tell me the medicine he was giving me. They tried to get me to sign insurance papers to pay for care and I refused until I was told what care I was being given. It was literally a "mexican stand off". I had Hospital administrators coming to my room. I had an Emergency room doctor arguing with my neurologist over what could cause a reaction in my condition, with my neurologist KNOWING I had already had a reaction. Now, you are talking about an argument with someone who had 19 years of schooling AND their neurologist versus a construction worker? Things like this DO happen in hospitals.