Couple sue hospital for failed organ donation

Fiery mutant · 05-05-2018 08:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Says right there in the article:

He never got an explanation after the failed transplant, there was a meeting, and they were told it could be a number of things, he said.

This is not like replacing a faulty component in your car. You see a broken piece and say ‘yeah, see, it’s ****ed’.

As much as we know about the human body, there is still so much we don’t know. It mentions a sizing issue, which could have meant anything. There is a myriad of reasons, and maybe they just don’t know.

But no matter how much you read this article, the only thing that sticks is:

‘It is claimed she became depressed and suffered grief for the loss of an organ.’

This is just bat**** crazy talk.

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2018 09:12PM

Fiery mutant wrote: »

This is not like replacing a faulty component in your car. You see a broken piece and say ‘yeah, see, it’s ****ed’.

As much as we know about the human body, there is still so much we don’t know. It mentions a sizing issue, which could have meant anything. There is a myriad of reasons, and maybe they just don’t know.

Yes I know all that, I'm aware of how transplants work and I'm fairly well aware of the risks involved. That's not the issue, nor is the issue that the second transplant attempt was successful. The issue is that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the first attempt was obviously unsuccessful.

I'm aware that medicine isn't an exact science and is full of trial and error, but how is anyone supposed to learn anything from just accepting the excuse that the hospital just doesn't know why the transplant failed the first time. I don't think it's beyond reasonable expectations that they should be expected to determine the exact cause of the initial failure before a second attempt was made.

But no matter how much you read this article, the only thing that sticks is:

‘It is claimed she became depressed and suffered grief for the loss of an organ.’

This is just bat**** crazy talk.

Yep, that much I definitely agree with, that is crazy talk, and shouldn't be entertained, but I can understand the reasons why it is entertained, as facepalm inducing and all as it is!

iamwhoiam · 05-05-2018 09:14PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm aware that a failed transplant could be any number of things, and that's really the point - rather than be fobbed off with the excuse that it could have been any number of things, surely it would be better to determine the exact cause of the failure rather than rely on just pure luck as to whether or not a procedure will work before they go about making a second attempt.

They do not always know the reason ? It is not possible to pinpoint a reason sometimes , Its never fail safe . Every patient knows that and are well aware of it . The renal liason team would have gone over all of that. Every donor is given counselling and information at every stage
No one donates a kidney with any sort of guarantee . They know it is a real possibility it will fail

minikin · 05-05-2018 09:15PM

They should give it back to her, with some fava beans and a nice...

Cee-Jay-Cee · 05-05-2018 09:40PM

Every arsehóle is entitled to take a claim against anyone they chose. Their case won’t make it to court and if it does it will be thrown out and hopefully costs awarded against them. That’ll give the stupid cùnts something proper to be bothered about.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-05-2018 10:54PM

About 10% of patients will experience a rejection episode,

I'm pretty sure they'd have been told that beforehand and that a living perfect match donor kidney lasts twice as long as one from a non-living donor. And that there's a 3% chance of dying. Though in fairness your chance of dying if you don't get a new one is a tad higher.

Not sure why this will be going to court when they signed a waiver ?

dr.fuzzenstein · 05-05-2018 11:32PM

You might as well sue Met Eireann because you relied on their weather forecast and your outdoor event was a washout.

laserlad2010 · 06-05-2018 12:26AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes I know all that, I'm aware of how transplants work and I'm fairly well aware of the risks involved. That's not the issue, nor is the issue that the second transplant attempt was successful. The issue is that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the first attempt was obviously unsuccessful.

Your quote above is facepalm inducing by itself. If you knew how transplants worked, you'd understand that occasionally they fail for no known reason. Microischemia. Undetectable graft vs host disease. Thromboemboli.

So, you're suggesting that the medical team should have turned down the second kidney whilst they get to the bottom of why the first one failed? The renal transplant waiting list is quite long - so are you going to pass up on the second kidney or not?

_Dara_ · 06-05-2018 12:27AM

PTSD is the new whiplash. :mad:

iamwhoiam · 06-05-2018 09:36AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

PTSD is the new whiplash. :mad:

I have only this to say .There is Vicky Phelan and then there is is this woman who misses her kidney despite having donated it to her husband and now feels hard done by .Grant me patience .

suicide_circus · 06-05-2018 09:43AM

Some things need to be ringfenced and exempt from lawsuits like a good Samaritan clause. And organ donation/transplants should be one of them.

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2018 10:49AM

laserlad2010 wrote: »

Your quote above is facepalm inducing by itself. If you knew how transplants worked, you'd understand that occasionally they fail for no known reason. Microischemia. Undetectable graft vs host disease. Thromboemboli.

So, you're suggesting that the medical team should have turned down the second kidney whilst they get to the bottom of why the first one failed? The renal transplant waiting list is quite long - so are you going to pass up on the second kidney or not?

What exactly is facepalm inducing about suggesting that offering the answer that they don't know why a transplant failed is an unsatisfactory answer? I do know that transplants fail for unknown reasons. The fact that they fail doesn't answer the question as to why the first transplant failed, requiring a second attempt, and obviously as you point out given the waiting list is as long as it is, and given the scarcity of readily available organs for transplant, as I said - it's not beyond reasonable to expect that the hospital would determine why the first transplant failed before making a second attempt, and hoping that this time it would be successful. It's not as though they have an unlimited supply of organs to keep going until they find one that isn't rejected or doesn't fail.

pickarooney · 06-05-2018 10:50AM

K.Flyer wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken anybody going under elective or semi-elective surgery will have signed some form of disclaimer that they understand that nothing is guaranteed.
Given the number of recipients that reject their new organs no medical institution could guarantee 100% success. They may have been married, but that doesn't mean they are biologically close.
In this case the solicitor is an ambulance chaser.

Maybe the rejected kidney revealed to them that they weren't actually blood relatives as they'd always thought and this realisation is what's causing the anguish?

iamwhoiam · 06-05-2018 11:04AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly is facepalm inducing about suggesting that offering the answer that they don't know why a transplant failed is an unsatisfactory answer? I do know that transplants fail for unknown reasons. The fact that they fail doesn't answer the question as to why the first transplant failed, requiring a second attempt, and obviously as you point out given the waiting list is as long as it is, and given the scarcity of readily available organs for transplant, as I said - it's not beyond reasonable to expect that the hospital would determine why the first transplant failed before making a second attempt, and hoping that this time it would be successful. It's not as though they have an unlimited supply of organs to keep going until they find one that isn't rejected or doesn't fail.

Do you honestly not understand that sometimes it cannot be determined why a transplanted organ failed ? It does fail , they know it can fail , the patient can reject it etc . Etc etc . Sometimes they simply cannot pinpoint a solid readon

Or do you mean it would be better that the donor should be told that ? Because the fact is they are told just that and will have most probably been told it numerous times .

Tell me how · 06-05-2018 11:08AM

pickarooney wrote:

Maybe the rejected kidney revealed to them that they weren't actually blood relatives as they'd always thought and this realisation is what's causing the anguish?

They've bigger problems if they thought their spouse was a blood relative.

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2018 11:12AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand that sometimes it cannot be determined why a transplanted organ failed ? It does fail , they know it can fail , the patient can reject it etc . Etc etc . Sometimes they simply cannot pinpoint a solid readon

Or do you mean it would be better that the donor should be told that ? Because the fact is they are told just that and will have most probably been told it numerous times .

This is what I'm suggesting shouldn't happen. I know they'll have been told numerous times that an organ can fail for any number of unspecified reasons, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that that excuse is simply unsatisfactory. Given what's at stake, "it happens, we dunno why", simply isn't good enough. That's all I'm saying.

bottlebrush · 06-05-2018 11:13AM

So was her kidney transplanted to somebody else?

kylith · 06-05-2018 11:15AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is what I'm suggesting shouldn't happen. I know they'll have been told numerous times that an organ can fail for any number of unspecified reasons, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that that excuse is simply unsatisfactory. Given what's at stake, "it happens, we dunno why", simply isn't good enough. That's all I'm saying.

But if the hospital can honestly not determine a reason why it failed? What then? Sometimes “it happens, we dunno why” is the only answer there is.

Mint Sauce · 06-05-2018 11:16AM

I am 99.9% sure they were told before the surgury, this might not work, your body might reject it, yada yada, yada.

Courts need to take a long hard look at the cases that are coiming before them. The sue culture in this country is nearly a bigger epidemic then any biological illness or disease.

Obsvously feel sorry the surgery did not work, but that is why you sign a consent before them.

bear1 · 06-05-2018 11:16AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well yeah I can understand that they are grateful that the man is alive, but I don't think that's the point. The point of the couple suing the hospital has more to do with highlighting the fact that they were never given an explanation as to why the kidney failed and therefore a second operation was necessary.

It's simply not good enough on the hospitals part to effectively throw up their hands and say "Tough titty, we dunno, he's alive isn't he?" It's a fairly poor standard of medical care when the hospital is not held accountable for their actions on the basis that the standard is "Well, we dunno what happened the first time, but it all worked out in the end".

You're taking the piss right?
They supposedly haven't given an explanation so this equals €€€ signs for them?

06-05-2018 11:18AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm aware that a failed transplant could be any number of things, and that's really the point - rather than be fobbed off with the excuse that it could have been any number of things, surely it would be better to determine the exact cause of the failure rather than rely on just pure luck as to whether or not a procedure will work before they go about making a second attempt.

Isn't it a time sensitive thing? For both the transplant itself and the person receiving it? Taking the time to determine the cause of failure, would probably have opened them up to other legal claims, especially if the patient died/was damaged while waiting.

I'd guess it's a your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The part that pisses me off is that these kind of claims/cases, drive up the insurance premiums for all hospitals/doctors/surgeons, and we will all suffer since those costs will be transferred to the rest of us.

iamwhoiam · 06-05-2018 11:20AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is what I'm suggesting shouldn't happen. I know they'll have been told numerous times that an organ can fail for any number of unspecified reasons, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that that excuse is simply unsatisfactory. Given what's at stake, "it happens, we dunno why", simply isn't good enough. That's all I'm saying.

And I am asking you do you know for a fact that the team actually said
" It happens , we dunno why " . You seem to quote it as a given that that is how it was worded .I am almost certain that no renal consultant would word it as such or as you have previous ( in other posts ) suggested .
Donated organs and kidney fail and sometimes no reason is clear . I have no idea why you think saying that is making an excuse .Its a fact .

ninja 12 · 06-05-2018 11:26AM

This is an appalling basis for a claim .

They would have been advised of any and all risks beforehand .

At least Mr. Ryan acknowledges the fact that somebody else donated organs that enabled him to still be alive and in better health than he was before .

Mr Ryan told the High Court he was very grateful for the second transplant but his wife was "devastated".
"It was a huge blow to her I had another person's kidney in me", he said.

Still shouldn't be claiming though .

Mint Sauce · 06-05-2018 11:33AM

So his issue, the fact that the first surgury did not work, or that the kidney in him is not his wifes!

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2018 11:39AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn't it a time sensitive thing? For both the transplant itself and the person receiving it? Taking the time to determine the cause of failure, would probably have opened them up to other legal claims, especially if the patient died/was damaged while waiting.

I'd guess it's a your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The part that pisses me off is that these kind of claims/cases, drive up the insurance premiums for all hospitals/doctors/surgeons, and we will all suffer since those costs will be transferred to the rest of us.

Oh definitely like I understand it's a time sensitive thing, and there are other issues involved as to whether either the recipient is in good enough condition for a transplant or would it be a waste of time to attempt a transplant. As I understand it from lung transplants at least there are all sorts of factors to be taken into consideration, and the aftercare itself can take a tremendous toll on the patient, they'd be on all sorts of anti-rejection drugs to suppress their immune system so the new organs would get a chance to take, all that sort of stuff.

I don't know the exact timeline in this particular case, but given the thoroughness of my experience of other examples I'm aware of, I don't know why the hospital even considered making a second attempt without at least first determining the cause as to why the first attempt failed.

dr.fuzzenstein · 06-05-2018 11:39AM

Mr Ryan told the High Court he was very grateful for the second transplant but his wife was "devastated".
"It was a huge blow to her I had another person's kidney in me", he said.

Since suing the relatives of dead people is all the vogue right now, I'd say Mr Ryan should also sue the family of the organ donor for distress.
It is possible to sue the relatives of an entire family that has died and someone had the misfortune to witness it, we might as well open the door for lawsuits against the family of organ donors where the recipients were traumatised at having the organs of a dead person inside them.
That should take care of the last shreds of dignity and honor in the legal system.

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2018 11:49AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And I am asking you do you know for a fact that the team actually said
" It happens , we dunno why " . You seem to quote it as a given that that is how it was worded .I am almost certain that no renal consultant would word it as such or as you have previous ( in other posts ) suggested .
Donated organs and kidney fail and sometimes no reason is clear . I have no idea why you think saying that is making an excuse .Its a fact .

No, I'm obviously paraphrasing. I know they would have couched it in more sensitive terms, but the end result is still the same - insufficient explanation as to why the first attempt failed, requiring a second attempt. I don't know how many times you think a hospital should be allowed to make an attempt after each failure without first determining the cause of the previous failure. It seems particularly wasteful and given the toll a first attempt can take on a patient, before them through the rigours of a second attempt, it's not unreasonable to expect that they should have to determine why the first attempt failed, to reduce the likelihood of it happening a second or subsequent times.

bear1 · 06-05-2018 11:58AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I'm obviously paraphrasing. I know they would have couched it in more sensitive terms, but the end result is still the same - insufficient explanation as to why the first attempt failed, requiring a second attempt. I don't know how many times you think a hospital should be allowed to make an attempt after each failure without first determining the cause of the previous failure. It seems particularly wasteful and given the toll a first attempt can take on a patient, before them through the rigours of a second attempt, it's not unreasonable to expect that they should have to determine why the first attempt failed, to reduce the likelihood of it happening a second or subsequent times.

The couple are right to get a pay day from the hospital. Yes or No?

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2018 12:14PM

bear1 wrote: »

The couple are right to get a pay day from the hospital. Yes or No?

How can I possibly be expected to answer that question when I don't have all the facts to hand regarding this particular case in question?

It would be rather foolish of anyone to think they could give a qualified answer to that question without having all the facts in hand. The couple in question certainly have a right to pursue a case against the hospital and I don't regard any compensation as their main motivating factor. I regard their seeking a sufficient explanation as their main motivating factor and holding the hospital accountable for their actions.

dr.fuzzenstein · 06-05-2018 12:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I'm obviously paraphrasing. I know they would have couched it in more sensitive terms, but the end result is still the same - insufficient explanation as to why the first attempt failed, requiring a second attempt. I don't know how many times you think a hospital should be allowed to make an attempt after each failure without first determining the cause of the previous failure. It seems particularly wasteful and given the toll a first attempt can take on a patient, before them through the rigours of a second attempt, it's not unreasonable to expect that they should have to determine why the first attempt failed, to reduce the likelihood of it happening a second or subsequent times.

The explanation is that you don't go to a shop and buy a kidney that has been custom made.
Removing a kidney from another human being and implanting it into someone else is precisely what the manual states you cannot do and the body has a defense system to prevent exactly that.
So the fact it works at all is quite an amazing feat.
And one that doesn't work all the time.
The hospital probably listed a range of reasons why this didn't work, but it cannot be tied to a single one of these.
Maybe if the hospital had put stickers with possible reasons on the wall and thrown darts over their shoulder and given whatever as a reason, the couple would have been happier, but they're not children. Instead of lying to them to make them feel better, the hospital has enough integrity and balls to tell them the truth.
Some fragile snowflakes obviously can't handle this.
Sometimes you can just say that there are several reasons it might not have worked, but it can't be tied to a specific one.
I hope they lose and I hope they have costs awarded against them and I hope the same happens in the Buncranna case. And the fat delivery driver.

In fact courts seem to come down against these frivolous lawsuits that can only be described as attempted theft:

http://www.thejournal.ie/baby-buggy-defamation-2454881-Nov2015/

Couple sue hospital for failed organ donation

Comments