It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by freakytyThis sounds like a case of mistaken identity
She was told she had streptococcus, a flesh eating bacteria, and toxic shock syndrome
Originally posted by ferretman2
WOW! Un F'in believeable!!
If this was a botched job then everyone who was in the operating room at the time should be jailed and the hospital should be sued. The hospital board members should be sued and jailed.
... She was told she had streptococcus, a flesh eating bacteria, and toxic shock syndrome, but no further explanation was given. ...
Mejia said after she gave birth to Mathew last spring, she was kept in the hospital with complications. Twelve days after giving birth at Orlando Regional South Seminole hospital, she was transported to Orlando Regional Medical Center where she became a quadruple amputee. Now she can not care for or hold her baby.
"Yeah, I want to pick him up. He wants me to pick him up. I can't. I want to, but I can't," she said. "Woke up from surgery and I had no arms and no legs. No one told me anything. My arms and legs were just gone." Source
Originally posted by dgtempe
This woman may never know what its like to hold her child but she will know what its like to be filthy, filthy RICH.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
It is clear that, if she is telling the truth, she did not have sufficient understanding of her ailment or what treating it might entail. She was told she had an infection and toxic shock syndrome, but - again, to be fair, assuming she has been truthful - did not comprehend the potential implications of this. I may be entirely incorrect, but I believe it should be a physician's responsibility to adequately and comprehensively explain to a patient what their infirmity is, what might have to be done in order to save their life, and what the implications of that may be. Only then does the patient have the information necessary to consent to the procedure. If this is correct, then in a sense, this was done to her without her consent. Again, I may be wrong.
But... patients have also been known to lie (remember the famous "I found a human finger in my chicken nuggets" lawsuit? Turned out the lady planted the evidence and lied.) Nor does the "you'll have to sue us to get access" make any sense.
Originally posted by Nygdan
At first I thought, OMG they did this to another woman!?
IOW, this has been previously covered:
But by all means, feel free to continue the conversation here, I am linking for reference.
Originally posted by DJMessiah
Originally posted by bluesquareapple
The only reason they would have pulled the patient privacy card is if she contracted it from an infected person in the hospital.
Indeed. If she had the disease before she went to the hospital, she would have noticed it.
Originally posted by Byrd
...the majority of their hospital transports are of poor patients who wait until their health is dangerously bad before they go to a hospital.
Originally posted by shai hulud
Well, better get used to more of this when socialized medicine is implemented in this country. At least this lady can sue the hospital, ever try to sue the government?