Posts by Justin Fox

Good grief, Susan Martin24, there’s quite a bit you’re missing here, though I suppose you’re lucky enough to be blissfully unaware of how much you're struggling.

hiddenheron78 said:I think this might have been covered already, but since I'm new here, I figured I'd ask: what are the actual rights of a patient when you find yourself in a situation like this?

In America, much like everywhere else, patient rights can be a bit of a gray area. The most important thing is to fight for them the moment they start being trampled. Once the damage is done, it’s too late. And if you eventually take doctors to court, they usually just circle the wagons—colleagues defending colleagues—and label all sorts of malpractice as "standard procedure." That doesn't mean you shouldn't sue, though. Sometimes, it's about making them sweat. It gets annoying for them to have to show up at the courthouse every other day because a hundred dissatisfied patients decided to file suit.

hiddenheron78 said:My husband and I share the same blood type and Rh factor (AB+), and he offered to donate blood specifically for my surgery, but we were told that isn't standard practice.

Technically, you could have arranged for autologous transfusion—using your own blood—so if they needed it, they'd be using yours. It's just that it's more work for the hospital to store your specific supply separately; it's easier for them to just grab whatever is first in the pile. Apparently, a little extra effort for the medical staff is worth more than the patient's health risks. Sad, really. 😢

Personally, I would have turned down the IV, especially with that condescending "you look pale" routine. If a doctor acts rude, adopting an attitude of "don't test me, you aren't the boss here," you need to snap back with, "Excuse me, behave professionally; you are being paid by my money, so show me some respect." Don't let yourself be placed in a subordinate position. If they won't respect you, be difficult. Let them fear a report to the Chief of Medicine, a lawsuit, or a massive legal headache. When they act like such jerks that they refuse to respect the patient, then let fear dictate their respect. 😠

I assume you already had an IV in place, but the moment the nurse approached with the blood, you should have shouted that you were refusing the transfusion and revoking consent for them to treat you. Tell them you'll sue and physically prevent them from administering it. If she kept trying to hook up the bag, I'd have personally yanked the tubing out or pulled the needle myself. If they tried to force it on me, there would be blood everywhere—and not just mine. 😠 😈

hiddenheron78 said:No paperwork was ever presented to me for signing; they just claimed my decision had been noted.

Legally speaking, unless you sign a waiver upon admission giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want, they are required to ask permission for every single procedure. If they give you grief for not signing a blanket release, get their names and report them to the Department of Health and Human Services for withholding medical care for unlawful reasons. If they perform something without your explicit consent, you should have grounds for a lawsuit based on the resulting emotional distress.

hiddenheron78 said:To make matters even worse, instead of the laparoscopic procedure we’d actually agreed on before the surgery, they went ahead with a full open incision. And as for the fallopian tube repair? They just ripped the entire thing out. The doctor’s explanation was incredibly blunt—he basically just said it was "simpler that way." 😠

This should really serve as the foundation for a lawsuit. You walk in, you agree on a specific procedure, but then some idiot goes rogue and performs something entirely different—something irreversible that you never actually authorized. That’s exactly why I don't believe in signing those blanket consent forms. The real question is how we regulate this. From a legal standpoint, instead of signing a waiver that gives them a free pass for everything, shouldn't you only authorize one very specific treatment? Then, if they deviate from that plan, you have clear grounds to sue. Of course, even then, fighting it through the courts is an absolute nightmare—exhausting, expensive, and way too long.

The pragmatic approach? It’s simple. You walk into the doctor's office, you offer them some cash to do exactly what you want, and you hand over a small portion upfront. If you're satisfied with the results, the rest follows. That’s just how the reality of the American healthcare system works. If you want actual respect and dignified treatment, you either have to take your chances or pay under the table.

If someone completely ruins your life, your only alternative to the legal system is seeking retribution from some criminal. Now, I’m certainly not suggesting you actually go down that road. But when I sit back and think about what I’d do if some incompetent idiot destroyed my existence through sheer negligence—especially when the system fails to deliver any actual justice—it’s easy to imagine wanting to smash their car, break a window, or just lose my cool entirely. I’ll say it again: it isn't the right way to handle things. But a sloppy doctor ought to be well aware that there’s a very real possibility of paying for their incompetence and arrogance in much more visceral ways. If they understood that, maybe they’d actually start treating their patients with a shred of respect.

hiddenheron78 said:The thought that I have absolutely no say over my own body—no control, no rights, nothing—it honestly makes my skin crawl.

I’m right there with you, hiddenheron78. Honestly, it's the same story everywhere. These massive healthcare conglomerates have built such an impenetrable monopoly that they feel they can act with total impunity. They’ve lost all sense of empathy for actual patients. It’s frustrating to watch them cut corners and cause real harm, only to walk away without facing a single consequence. 😢
It’s only a matter of time before they finally hit a wall. It's coming.

There’s no need to rush. Honestly, take a moment to consider what happens if you decide against the surgery altogether. If you realize you actually do need it, though, look into making private arrangements—find a way to settle things on the side to ensure you receive dignified care. You want to make sure that once the procedure is over, your husband is right there waiting for you immediately. And if anyone tries to force some kind of aggressive treatment or unnecessary IV fluids on you against your will, you need to be physically prepared to stand your ground and stop them.

Does anyone have a decent idea on how to actually humanize the health insurance system so we can stop these kinds of horrors from happening? Reading this, I get the feeling that woman suffered as if she had been physically assaulted. If you commit a sexual assault, you go to prison. But when it comes to violence against a patient? It seems like nobody faces any consequences at all. 👎

What’s really the difference when someone donates bone marrow voluntarily versus doing it for money? Technically, the process is identical. They end up at the hospital, undergo all the screenings, get put under general anesthesia, have their pelvic bone drilled, and lose maybe 5% of their marrow. Then they spend a day in the ward recovering from the anesthesia, head home, deal with surgical pain for a week or two while the marrow regenerates, and within a couple of months, they’re back to 100%—exactly where they started.

Of course, the official medical line is that you need less time to recover if the procedure is smaller, but if you listen to actual patient experiences, that's rarely the case. Surgeons tend to be overly optimistic about recovery times; they usually brush off minor pains. It's the classic "you can stand up without screaming, so you're fine" approach.

Regarding the actual impact: if we allowed payment, we’d likely see a much larger pool of donors. Right now, very few people are altruistic enough to undergo surgery just for some stranger. For a loved one? Sure. But the odds of finding a compatible match in a family member are slim. Naturally, the wealthy would have the advantage, while those struggling would have to hope their insurance covers the donor's compensation, but that’s just fair play. Ultimately, it would significantly increase the number of available donors.

From a moral standpoint, look at what the donor goes through: physical pain, discomfort, being exposed to a controlled but real risk, and losing income while they recover. Providing material compensation to a donor is perfectly reasonable. It’s no different than compensating any other worker. Very few people are willing to volunteer their labor for free, and the same logic applies to marrow donation. The current system is flawed, but because the powerful, sluggish bureaucracies of our healthcare organizations have their own interests to protect, there's almost no chance of seeing real change anytime soon.

Peter Hernandez53, you've become quite the interesting topic of conversation. Personally, I suspect the reason organ sales aren't legalized is simply because the current power players managing the transplant game have no intention of letting go of such a lucrative business.

We’re talking about hospitals and massive healthcare conglomerates here. Like any large institution, their primary drive is to expand their own influence. When doctors hold the sole authority to decide who gets an organ, everything looks pristine on paper—as if decisions are made purely on merit and ethical standards. But we know how the world works. If someone has the cash and needs an organ, they find a way to grease the palms of a physician. It’s essentially a purchase, just handled indirectly. There's no tax revenue, no transparency, and no fair play, but it makes it much easier for everyone involved to look the other way.

In theory, introducing a regulated market would bring order to the chaos because the rules of engagement would be transparent. However, that kind of clarity doesn't sit well with the corrupt individuals and entrenched systems currently in control. So, it's highly unlikely we'll see any real change anytime soon.

I see that Jose Miller3 deleted my flame against Susan Martin24, though she took her shot at me too. Fair Play Dow, I suppose, even if I have been pretty critical of the medical field in general.

Edward Green, please, just read through the previous posts before you start flaming me. I made it pretty clear that, when you look at the big picture, donating organs is a profoundly human thing to do. I also noted that it’s incredibly difficult to wrap one's head around the concept of their own death.

Here is an interesting thought: there was recently some news about lab-grown bladders being developed—advancing despite all the pushback from religious dogmas and the church—thanks to genetic technology and our understanding of stem cells. It makes me wonder, how far off are we from growing more complex organs, like a heart or an eye, engineered specifically with the recipient's own DNA? That would eliminate the whole issue of immunosuppression, wouldn't it?

I wasn't actually commenting on whether I’d personally donate an organ or not. My point was about how Hillary Clinton's seemingly polished idea could be so easily bypassed. Laws that are easy to circumvent just aren't worth passing in the first place.

As for me, the whole concept of death is pretty unsettling. It makes you overthink what happens to the physical remains left behind. In theory, allowing those parts to be donated to help someone else would be the most humane and decent thing to do. But honestly? Most people find the thought of their own mortality so uncomfortable that they just avoid making any kind of decision at all.

I haven't done any deep dives into the medical side, but I have my doubts about how long or well people actually live with transplanted organs. It’s not like you get someone else's kidney and then head straight to the local YMCA to play basketball a month later. Between the surgery and the immunosuppressants likely taking a toll on the body, it's a struggle. Still, if it buys someone a few more years, it's worth it. So, yes—organ donation after death should be encouraged, provided we promote it as an act of humanity and respect. What turns my stomach is when it starts feeling coercive, like: "We're taking it because you didn't go to a notary to officially opt out. Oops, our bad!"

Susan Martin24 said:Did anyone catch Hillary Clinton on TV last night? I actually liked that one point someone brought up—the idea of people signing a waiver stating they don't want to be donors, or specifically won't give an organ if they end up needing one themselves.
Of course, the majority immediately pushed back... total nonsense.

Why nonsense? Are we going to start implementing rules where organ donors only donate to people who would have done the same for them? Or maybe just to people with blue eyes and blond hair from their own neighborhood? As I see it, donating is a humanitarian act. You don't just pick the "good" people; you include the jerks too, whoever happens to be next in line. I’m against discrimination. Besides, someone could easily declare themselves a donor, receive an organ, and then suddenly change their mind and say they aren't a donor anymore, right?

Susan Martin24 said:Regarding exports, specifically 😈

If there’s actually a surplus, why aren't they just freezing it all?

maliciousintent said:try looking here (or just reach out to them)

I find this poorly drafted.

Article 14 ...
Patient consent isn't required if failing to perform a specific procedure or intervention
A) seriously threatens health or physical safety of others, including a fetus after the 24th week of pregnancy, and
...

It feels like this opens the door to all sorts of questionable calls during pregnancy. You could have Doctor A deciding an intervention is vital for health, while Doctor B thinks it’s totally unnecessary. In that scenario, a patient caught in Doctor A's grip loses their right to choose. They end up being forced into a procedure they don't want and don't trust. That's fundamentally wrong.

The other piece of deep shit is Article 6 (1.2)

During the provision of healthcare, a patient's personal liberties and rights may be restricted (via physical, chemical, biological, or psychological methods or procedures) only in cases of emergency or to protect the life, physical safety, and health of the patient or others. Such restrictions cannot be punitive and should only last as long as the underlying cause requires. An advocate for patient rights must be notified of such measures as soon as possible (no later than 16 hours), where available.

What kind of nonsense is this regarding restricting personal freedom for "health protection"? According to this, a patient could be restrained or sedated based purely on the judgment of a doctor or nurse (see the points mentioned earlier). This goes beyond the bounds of reason.

Susan Martin24 said:I’m not getting paid to smile at people—not that my patients smile at me, nor would it ever cross my mind to ask them to—or to act like some flight attendant. My job is to treat them to the best of my ability.

Dear Susan, don't you think psychology is actually part of the healing process? Building trust, giving a patient the confidence that you're doing what's best for them? You seem to want to boil everything down to chemistry and procedures, as if just handing out pills fixes everything. What about how the patient feels? Does it matter to you if you're irritating them or driving them crazy, or if you're actually calming them down? Do you really not care about that?

Is this approach right? Personally, I don't think so. If you ignore psychological support, you're failing as a physician. With an attitude like that, you might be a decent vet or a technician, but you aren't practicing medicine for human beings.

Jamie Clark74, I don't personally have an issue with any of those requirements, though I can't say donating blood is the first thing on my mind.

As for the rule about turning away anyone who's had sex with someone of the same gender—that's just silly. But if we're talking about being sexually active in general, the risk of transmitting HIV increases, and it wouldn't be right for those individuals to donate.

Fantastic work. Huge props to dr. Luksic.

Statistically speaking, it’s justifiable. The risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among gay men. We could go down a philosophical rabbit hole debating whether that’s due to a higher likelihood of minor injuries causing blood exchange, or if those arguments are just moot when you consider people in stable, monogamous relationships. But at the end of the day, you can't argue with the data.

Look, I think we’re overcomplicating this. The core issue here is the actual protocol for organ donation and transplantation. Honestly, how many times a donor might have parked their car illegally is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The real issue isn't about what you manage to pull off during a single week; it’s about the long-term overhaul of your habits. That's where things get genuinely difficult.

Whether they make an announcement or not, nothing really changes. At the end of the day, a sick person needs a transplant, and how or from whom that organ is sourced is secondary. Would you rather have a kidney from a killer or one from a chronic alcoholic?

I mean, why not just run it by your primary care physician or maybe the orthopedic surgeon who actually performed the procedure? Why wasn't this brought up during your follow-ups? It’s possible you aren't even noticing a significant shift, or perhaps they simply aren't aware that it makes any difference at all.

At its core, the whole concept of organ transplantation is pretty heavy stuff. If someone has passed away, they aren't going to mind if parts of them are used to extend or even save someone else's life. Then again, it won't do them any good either, since they're gone. It's just... a bit melancholy, isn't it?

It’s like, if you aren't actually eating anything—just sticking to water or tea—you aren't taking in any "impurities" in the first place. Then, through sweat, urine, and everything else, you're essentially just flushing the system out. It’s a sort of internal cleansing, I suppose.