» Well said, john 35
»
» Before ANY doctor pulls out his calculator, this needs to be understood.
»
» Otherwise, all the figures assurances promises are meaningless, as many
» already know.
»
» And most keep their silence through fear
»
» There was a famous , well publicised case here in Australia some years
» ago.
»
» A patient was butchered, took it to court, had his details and face all
» over the news, and lost.
»
» I am not sure, but I think he had to pay damages to the doctor
»
» And all because of a watertight disclaimer
»
» Dr Ray Woods
Yes Dr.Woods,alot of doctors love mathematics (and physics) but don’t like to stay with their patient during major parts of the transplant.
I think that is relevant and material info that needs to be disclosed to patient.HT surgery is invasive procedure, it affect persons’ bodies, comfort, and lives in very invasive and irreversible or long-lasting ways.I know that my self all too well. It is on my head.
The physical touching of a person’s body without authorization or consent is an offense, often called assault in criminal law and battery in civil law directed toward compensation. The person’s consent to the touching neutralizes or removes the offense.
Consent is an important concept in medical and related health care. Health care personnel act unethically, unprofessionally, and illegally if they directly interfere with a person’s body without consent by undertaking unauthorized procedures on the person,exceeding consent the person has given, or performing procedures different from those the person has approved.
Is leaving the “surgical technicians” to perform the actual transplantation of hair follicles to the receptors when the doctor is not present, and the patient did not know that would be the case prior to signing that consent form, exceeding the consent that the patient gave? I think yes.
The consent must be adequately informed for it to satisfy legal and ethical standards. The doctor has a legal duty to ensure that the person whose consent is required receives information that is material to the choice whether or not to consent. Is the information that HT “surgical technicians” do not have formal medical training (if they don’t and it had been said on forums that it is established standard that they don’t)a material information? Is the physical absence of the HT doctor from the surgery room during the actual act of “transplant” material information? If it is why is not disclosed? If it is not material, why it isn’t?
Is telling THAT the prospective patient during consult a Reasonable effort that must be made to ensure that the person understands the information to his or her satisfaction. Because, that patient might not undergo such surgery if that info was disclosed to him .I know I certainly wouldn’t. The individual needs to be in possession of relevant facts… and also of his reasoning faculties, such as being without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Such impairments among other things might include, intoxication, etc.Do above mentioned medications given to patient prior to signing the consent form can cause such impairment?I think yes.
That kind of set up opens WIDE doors for PREDATOR HT doctors .Have any of you idea how much damage "surgical technicians"could do.SPECIALLY without direct supervision of the doctor and specially when they do not work for that HT Doctor full time.
And that rule IS ESTABLISHED And most of you here KNOW that because you had your hair transplant surgeries.
BECAUSE the way is set up, BUTCHERS can not be prosecuted, BECAUSE even the well established clinics with consistently good results, FOLLOW the same rules.
I will give you analogy
Drinking and driving is against the Law.We all know that.
Why?
Because it is proven that driving skills are impaired because the driver is drunk, thus prone to cause an accident.
NOW,DRUNKEN BOB is an excellent driver with excellent driving skills, and he is much better driver when drunk that, Steven who is 90 years old,grandpa following the speed limit, (even driving bellow the speed limit). Even that in reality that Grandpa is more likely to cause an accident, he is not going to get arrested, but DRUNKEN BOB will, Because statistically drinking does not improve driving skills but impairs them and THEREFORE to prevent harm and exposure to harm the lawmaker forbids drinking and driving
Now we have “Christopher” who is HT doctor with great skill, his surgical technicians are excellent too.
He knows that those surgical technicians even when he is not around will do their best and their best is top notch work.
Jeff is HT doctors with very bad skills and he has surgical technicians that also are very bad at what they do. They don’t work for Jeff exclusively and don’t care if Jeff is going to call them again to work for him or not. So they F****K the patients up because Jeff is not there in the surgical room to follow the progress and supervise them.
The patient is disfigured. He goes to Christopher and says…look this Jeff left me alone with his technicians and instead of 2000 grafts they put 200 all sparse and far apart…do you think Jeff breached his duty of care to me when he left me with those people unsupervised, I need your opinion because the courts think that there is such thing as Ethic in your field of practice and they request that I bring them in writing letter from another HT doctor that indeed Jeff did me wrong.
Christopher refuses, because, HE DOES THE SAME THING AS JEFF, which is leaving the surgical room for extended time,leaving his patient alone with the “surgical technicians”… Among HT doctors how many of them are Jeff and how many Christopher? What do you think? And, consequently how many patients would end up with Jeff’s and how many with Christopher’s?
THAT IS WHY the Law FORBIDS that surgeon abandons patient. Because STATISTICALLY patient left alone without the surgeon being present EXPOSES PATIENT TO HARM.Is leaving HT patient alone for hours when the transplantation of folicles is done in that doctors physical absence abandoning the patient?I don’t know,but I would like to know,if the doctors here would kindly chime in and enlighten me.
The practice of drinking alcohol and driving is an example of this kind of arrangement. This risky behavior fortunately causes harm less often than it occurs. Persons who drink to the point of impairment or beyond and drive, but do not cause an accident as a result, are lucky. From a moral perspective, since it is only luck that separates members of the drinking drivers group who cause harm from members who do not, each member bears some degree of guilt and moral taint.
By aplied analogy to the questions I posted about specific conducts that harm or expose to harm patients,such as, leaving of patient in midle of surgery,delegating Physician duties to non med personel etc …
It is the willingness here of Almost every one of the HT “Industry” to engage in behavior (like drink driving is) likely to cause harm (injury to patient,and/or adverse efect) that justifies liability for the whole group, and this group HT "Industry liability is independent of the additional individual liability of a particular doc " intentionaly violating patient rights to cut cost and expand profit, whose risky behavior actually results in harm (it could and it does).
Keep up the good work Dr.Woods. Things change. And the HT “standard of care” will change too, sooner or later. And people will remember the dark days and the disgraced majority and admire man like you who DIDN’T submit to the travesty just to make more bucks and be invited into “the club”
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-56014-page-3-category-2-order-last_answer.html
