WWYD? Medical Profession related

[donald&daisy]

Once again,

battery
n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."

You can quote sources all day. I can can quote other sources all day too...for example:

"A defendant must intend to make contact with a plaintiff to constitute a battery. The defendant may be liable for a battery even if he or she did not intend to harm the plaintiff. The defendant may also be liable for a battery even if he or she intended only to commit an assault if he or she acts with such intent and accidentally causes the offensive contact.

Examples of acts that constitute a battery include playing a joke on a person that involves offensive contact, performing surgery on the incorrect portion of a person's body, throwing an object at a person, and poisoning a person's drink. Examples of acts that do not constitute a battery include tapping a person on the shoulder to ask a question and touching a person as passengers board a crowded subway."

Medical treatment performed without informed consent in a non-emergency situation is a textbook example of battery. Once again, I am not advocating instituting a lawsuit in this situation. I am just trying to clear up exactly what battery is and the requisite elements (intending to cause harm is NOT one).

 

[corndog]

It isn't malpractice and it isn't battery. I could not imagine a responsible attorney EVEN considering this, but who knows in this ridiculous day and age. One can sue a ham sandwich! If this is a trend that becomes more prevalent, the public will deserve what it gets; fewer health care workers willing to get up and go to work every day and take the risks of caring for a litigious public.

Well, I am an attorney, and a responsible one at that (I swear "responsible attorney" is not an oxymoron). This most certainly is medical malpractice and battery.

As I mentioned above, medical malpractice is when a mistake is made. That's what all medical malpractice litigation is. Medical malpractice is not when the doctor punches you in the stomach or takes $20 out of your wallet. It's when he makes a mistake.

And the definition that someone keeps posting for battery is incorrect. Battery is an unwanted intentional touch. Period. Intent to cause harm does not factor into the equation. If I'm walking down the sidewalk past someone and think she looks like she needs a hug, but she does not want a hug from me and I give her one anyway, that's battery, even though my intent was pure. The giving of the shot was intentional. The gardisil was unwanted though. Therefore-->battery.

No attorney would take this case, however, because the damages are not significant. You could win on principle, but principle doesn't pay the bills.


Also, is it OK for a doctor to give treatment to an unaccompanied minor?

 

[luvmy3]

As for intervals...now she's had the first vaccination, she'll just have to time it so that she gets her second in 2 months, and the third in 6.

She can still get another depo shot and use another form of BC for awhile as well, then just back to her normal depo schedule.

I'm talking about the Guardisal. You said she would have to time in so that she got her second vaccination in 2 months. If she was going in to get what she believed to be her 2nd depo shot, it would have been 3 months since the original G vaccination was given. She would have already gone over the 2 month time frame.

 

[donald&daisy]

Well, I am an attorney, and a responsible one at that (I swear "responsible attorney" is not an oxymoron). This most certainly is medical malpractice and battery.

As I mentioned above, medical malpractice is when a mistake is made. That's what all medical malpractice litigation is. Medical malpractice is not when the doctor punches you in the stomach or takes $20 out of your wallet. It's when he makes a mistake.

And the definition that someone keeps posting for battery is incorrect. Battery is an unwanted intentional touch. Period. Intent to cause harm does not factor into the equation. If I'm walking down the sidewalk past someone and think she looks like she needs a hug, but she does not want a hug from me and I give her one anyway, that's battery, even though my intent was pure. The giving of the shot was intentional. The gardisil was unwanted though. Therefore-->battery.

No attorney would take this case, however, because the damages are not significant. You could win on principle, but principle doesn't pay the bills.


Also, is it OK for a doctor to give treatment to an unaccompanied minor?

Thanks for the second opinion. I have to hand it to the other posters their conviction is very convincing. I had to go back and re-read my notes just to make sure I wasn't confusing the elements.

 

[ReneeA]

I'm talking about the Guardisal. You said she would have to time in so that she got her second vaccination in 2 months. If she was going in to get what she believed to be her 2nd depo shot, it would have been 3 months since the original G vaccination was given. She would have already gone over the 2 month time frame.

From what I've read, it's still an unknown. It's best to get it right at the 2 month marker, but if it's missed then it's up to the PP to decide if they should go ahead with it. Most (from what I've read - I'm not currently working in women's health right now) are telling patients to get it anyway - won't cause any harm, but may not have as much protection as if they'd gotten it right on schedule. It's still very new...they don't know all the nuances of it yet.

 

[luvmy3]

From what I've read, it's still an unknown. It's best to get it right at the 2 month marker, but if it's missed then it's up to the PP to decide if they should go ahead with it. Most (from what I've read - I'm not currently working in women's health right now) are telling patients to get it anyway - won't cause any harm, but may not have as much protection as if they'd gotten it right on schedule. It's still very new...they don't know all the nuances of it yet.

Thats interesting especially in this situation. What would happen if after this vaccination has been around much longer there was a link between not getting the shots in the recommended time frame and some serious issue caused by it. It would then make this mistake a rather big one.

 

[daughtersrus]

That's what all medical malpractice claims are--suing for mistakes.

You have to prove damages. How was this girl "damaged" by getting the wrong shot? Did she loose income? Have pain and suffering? If not, the court could find that they are guilty of Med Mal but award the plantiff $0.00 (or maybe the amount that they were charged for the shot that she didn't want)

Does anyone know if the parent signed a form when the shot was given?

This thread is long but I asked the question earlier. I know that we have to sign for every shot that is given to our children. The paper lists the name of the medication as well as the lot #. IMHO, if the parent signed without reading, they would be just as responsible as the doctor's office.

 

[rie'smom]

Since I'm not planning to have my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine, I woud have been very angry. Sorry wouldn't cut it. I wouldn't sue but you can bet we'd have it documented in case there were problems down the road with the Gardasil vaccine. There's no way that I woud ever take another of my children to that doctor. Thank goodness there was no apparent harm done however, what if the nurse had given her a vaccination with something and the girl had had a bad allergeric reaction.
IMO, this nurse was careless and irresponsible.

You have to prove damages. How was this girl "damaged" by getting the wrong shot? Did she loose income? Have pain and suffering? If not, the court could find that they are guilty of Med Mal but award the plantiff $0.00 (or maybe the amount that they were charged for the shot that she didn't want)

Does anyone know if the parent signed a form when the shot was given?

This thread is long but I asked the question earlier. I know that we have to sign for every shot that is given to our children. The paper lists the name of the medication as well as the lot #. IMHO, if the parent signed without reading, they would be just as responsible as the doctor's office.

We have never had to sign for any vaccination given to our children. Different states may have different laws. The Gardasil vaccine is still relatively new and no one can say for sure that there won't be problems for this girl down the line because of this vaccine.

 

[daughtersrus]

Since I'm not planning to have my daughter get the Gardasil vaccine, I woud have been very angry. Sorry wouldn't cut it. I wouldn't sue but you can bet we'd have it documented in case there were problems down the road with the Gardasil vaccine. There's no way that I woud ever take another of my children to that doctor. Thank goodness there was no apparent harm done however, what if the nurse had given her a vaccination with something and the girl had had a bad allergeric reaction.
IMO, this nurse was careless and irresponsible.

By that time, the statute of limitations may have run out. I know that in IL for a minor, it's eight years after the act but not past their 22nd birthday.

 

[daughtersrus]

We have never had to sign for any vaccination given to our children. Different states may have different laws. The Gardasil vaccine is still relatively new and no one can say for sure that there won't be problems for this girl down the line because of this vaccine.

I'm guessing that it's a state law here. We also have to sign for any prescription that we pick up at the pharmacy even for adults.

No one has said if the parent signed for this or not so I was just trying to find out what the laws/rules are where this happened.

 

[rie'smom]

By that time, the statute of limitations may have run out. I know that in IL for a minor, it's eight years after the act but not past their 22nd birthday.

When I say that I'd want it documented, I don't mean for lawsuit purposes. I mean that if there are problems discovered with the vaccine, I'd want to be able to show a physician that my daughter did indeed have the vaccine in the past. I'd ask the doctor to keep it in her file and I'd also request a copy to keep at home because many doctor's offices do get rid of files after a certain number of years.

 

[Disney Doll]

I am speaking from a Dr.'s perspective. We don't stock Depoprovera in our office, so, the patient needs to get it from a pharmacy. I write the original prescription for one year's time, and actually, patients are free to come in for their Depoprovera at their convenience, even if I don't happen to be in the office. We do stock Guardisil for those patients whose insurance will cover it.

I once spent about 45 minutes trying to figure out just what immunizations a particular nurse gave a specific patient. I ended up needing to call the pharmaceutical company and have them look up what was given by lot number, which is unique. Needless to say, that nurse was disciplined within our practice, and the entire nursing staff had a refresher on correct documentation of immunizations. Improper documentation is a pet peeve of mine, but, fortunately, with most immunizations, getting an extra one won't really harm a patient (unless they are allergic) and might actually save a visit sometime down the road.

In my opinion, sexually active teens should be using condoms, to prevent from STD's, which Depoprovera won't do. There are failures of every type of contraception. I think it is a shame that a person who had a good relationship with a particular physician would even consider suing the doctor because a nurse made an error. Nurses make errors every day. But, doctors take responsibility for their mistakes. Not fair, in my opinion.

Doctors make errors every day that nurses get blamed for too, but that's probably a topic for a different discussion.

 

[Disney Doll]

Then consider yourself "fortunate" that you did not pursue a career that demands perfection 110% of the time. Consider the consequences to patient care if care givers faced a vengeful, punitive patient population every time they put their uniforms on and went to work.

Dawn, healthcare workers do face a vengeful punitve aptient population every time we put on our uniforms and go to work.

If I had a nickel for every time a patient or family member threatened to sue me for some percieved slight (such as not repsonding quickly enough to their request for coffee), I wouldn't have to work.

Everyone is looking for a quick paycheck.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I would not sue, but I would certainly would be very concerned.

There are many reasons a person may not want this particular vaccine, and it should be up to the family to decide. In this case, that choice was taken away from them.

Before receiving the vaccine, don't you have to be tested for HPV? When researching it I read that if you already have HPV and receive it you can end up with some very serious even potentially fatal side effects. If this girl is sexually active and has not been tested for HPV, then she could be at risk for these side effects.

I also find it somewhat unbelievable that people seem to be blaming the girl. I have been given shots at doctor's offices before and it would never have occurred to me to look at the label. Now that I have read this thread, I will. But I was brought up to trust doctors and other healthcare professionals. I would assume they would know what they are doing. I bet from now on she will check, but to suggest that she somehow bares some of the responsibility is ridiculous, IMO.

At this point, I wouldn't pursue it any further. I would be in contact with the office and ask them if they determined how the mistake was made and what steps would be put into place to preven this from happening in the future. If I felt they were not properly addressing it, then I would consider filing a report. But the fact that they voluntarily owned up to it speaks volumes.

 

[princess momma]

Well, I am an attorney, and a responsible one at that (I swear "responsible attorney" is not an oxymoron). This most certainly is medical malpractice and battery.

As I mentioned above, medical malpractice is when a mistake is made. That's what all medical malpractice litigation is. Medical malpractice is not when the doctor punches you in the stomach or takes $20 out of your wallet. It's when he makes a mistake.

And the definition that someone keeps posting for battery is incorrect. Battery is an unwanted intentional touch. Period. Intent to cause harm does not factor into the equation. If I'm walking down the sidewalk past someone and think she looks like she needs a hug, but she does not want a hug from me and I give her one anyway, that's battery, even though my intent was pure. The giving of the shot was intentional. The gardisil was unwanted though. Therefore-->battery.

No attorney would take this case, however, because the damages are not significant. You could win on principle, but principle doesn't pay the bills.


Also, is it OK for a doctor to give treatment to an unaccompanied minor?[/QUOTE]

At least where I live, minors are allowed to make some reproductive health care decisions on their own at 16. I wonder if the doctor somehow brought this up with the girl and thought she had consented to the vaccine. The OP says she doesn't even know why the girl is on Depo, so it seems like there are some missing pieces to this story.

 

[Disney Doll]

I guess being a nurse would make you more than a bit bias when it comes to this incident.
I still stand by my statement about it needing to be reported. Filing incidents are not standard practice by who, the patients who the mistakes are made on? Or the doctor in charge of the patients care, or the nurse who made the mistake? And, if its not standard practice then how would a formal complaint always result in an investigation for such an incident? Its not my job to decide whether there should be an investigation, but if thats how its done then so be it. If it turns out (in this case) that is was just an accident then an investigation does no harm, only to document the error. If an investigation occurs and its found that disciplinary action IS needed then all the more reason to have reported it, right?

I realize that nurses and doctor's make mistakes, but I don't think its okay to brush it off becuase they are only human and expected sometime. If there isn't a system in place that documents these types of incident, there certainly should be. I'm not saying each and every incident should be disciplined, only recored so that we patients have access to it if we went looking for such information.

In CT, if one chooses to "report" an incident involving a nurse, it gets reported to the DPH, which launches a full investigation. A full investigation usually reults in some sort of disciplinary action, so in effect, by reporting what is, in essence, a benign occurrence, you will be initiating disciplinary action.

Certainly you're well within your right to choose to do whatever you wish and cause as much grief for someone as you want to, and you can do it all under the guise of trying to "do the right thing"...but when there are not enough nurses to take care of you in 10 years (average age is 47 and they are leaving the profession in droves for several reasons, not the least of which is fear of losing everything for making an unintentional mistake), be prepared to provide the necessary nursing care for your family and hope there will be someone willing to provide it for you.

 

[Disney Doll]

That's what all medical malpractice claims are--suing for mistakes.

You are correct. I guess I should have said "a benign mistake".

 

[luvmy3]

In CT, if one chooses to "report" an incident involving a nurse, it gets reported to the DPH, which launches a full investigation. A full investigation usually reults in some sort of disciplinary action, so in effect, by reporting what is, in essence, a benign occurrence, you will be initiating disciplinary action.

Certainly you're well within your right to choose to do whatever you wish and cause as much grief for someone as you want to, and you can do it all under the guise of trying to "do the right thing"...but when there are not enough nurses to take care of you in 10 years (average age is 47 and they are leaving the profession in droves for several reasons, not the least of which is fear of losing everything for making an unintentional mistake), be prepared to provide the necessary nursing care for your family and hope there will be someone willing to provide it for you.

I would suggest that if you have a problem with how your state deals with these types of incidents take it up with them and try to change it instead of blaming and bellyaching about the patients who you unintentally may have harmed reporting it.

 

[Disney Doll]

I would suggest that if you have a problem with how your state deals with these types of incidents take it up with them and try to change it instead of blaming and bellyaching about the patients who you unintentally may have harmed reporting it.

How lovely.

I just actually prefer not to waste valuable state resources on what are essentially benign issues that society today feels the need to make someone "pay" for, for no real reason other than "because".

As I said earlier, if you choose to behave in a different manner, be prepared for the consequences of going to the hospital and not having many nurses there to care for you or a loved one because...oops...someone got a wrong medicine one time that did no damage but said nurses can't work until the 6 month long investigation is over.

I am quite sure that the average healthcare consumer is more than capable of recognizing, evaluating, reporting and treating a whole host of medical problems while all the nurses are being investigated because they gave someone Advil instead of Tylenol.

Good luck with that.

Time to say bye-bye to this thread, as it has degnerated into the realm of ridiculous because people who have no idea about the healthcare system are the ones who get to "report" us for our horrific infractions.

 

[luvmy3]

How lovely.

I just actually prefer not to waste valuable state resources on what are essentially benign issues that society today feels the need to make someone "pay" for, for no real reason other than "because".

As I said earlier, if you choose to behave in a different manner, be prepared for the consequences of going to the hospital and not having many nurses there to care for you or a loved one because...oops...someone got a wrong medicine one time that did no damage but said nurses can't work until the 6 month long investigation is over.

I am quite sure that the average healthcare consumer is more than capable of recognizing, evaluating, reporting and treating a whole host of medical problems while all the nurses are being investigated because they gave someone Advil instead of Tylenol.

Good luck with that.

Time to say bye-bye to this thread, as it has degnerated into the realm of ridiculous because people who have no idea about the healthcare system are the ones who get to "report" us for our horrific infractions.

What is ridiculous is that you are a nurse and think giving someone a dose of a fairly new Guardisal vaccination without consent is along the same lines of giving Advil instead of Tylenol. Its attitudes like this that make it all the more important for these incidents to be reported.