Couple sue hospital for failed organ donation

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Bring her case not his to it's logical conclusion when holding the hospital accountable for their actions.

She volunteered to be tested.
She voluntarily decided to donate.
She voluntarily turned up at the hospital and agreed to be operated on.
She appears not to be suing for medical complications.

How do the hospital eliminate the risk of being subject to a donation PTSD claim in the future?

Glass fused light wrote: »

Bring her case not his to it's logical conclusion when holding the hospital accountable for their actions.

She volunteered to be tested.
She voluntarily decided to donate.
She voluntarily turned up at the hospital and agreed to be operated on.
She appears not to be suing for medical complications.

How do the hospital eliminate the risk of being subject to a donation PTSD claim in the future?

I suppose the easiest way would be to only use organs from donors who have already agreed to donate their organs upon their death.

Kurtosis wrote: »

In some cases, no matter how much time and effort are put in, it's not possible to determine why an organ transplant has failed given by he current limitations of medical knowledge and technology. What would you suggest should happen when all lines of investigation into a cause are unsuccessful?

Come up with a better methodology or medical technology which addresses the current limitations and eliminates them would surely be the obvious answer to that question. I imagine that would be a better long term strategy than the idea of taking a chance and hope for the best, thereby learning nothing in the process that could actually be used to determine better outcomes in future cases, with the idea being to reduce the number of unknown factors and thereby reduce the risks involved.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Come up with a better methodology or medical technology which addresses the current limitations and eliminates them would surely be the obvious answer to that question. I imagine that would be a better long term strategy than the idea of taking a chance and hope for the best, thereby learning nothing in the process that could actually be used to determine better outcomes in future cases, with the idea being to reduce the number of unknown factors and thereby reduce the risks involved.

It's not an either/or scenario, further research happens anyway, although this involves pooling data on many cases of organ rejections to identify factors. However that isn't going to yield answers in time for a patient where the cause of failure cannot be determined.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I suppose the easiest way would be to only use organs from donors who have already agreed to donate their organs upon their death.

And the person's body rejects the deceased persons organ.
The hospital should be sued right?

Kurtosis wrote: »

It's not an either/or scenario, further research happens anyway, although this involves pooling data on many cases of organ rejections to identify factors. However that isn't going to yield answers in time for a patient where the cause of failure cannot be determined.

This is what I'm saying. How many times should a patient be subjected to trial and error procedures without first determining the cause of the previous failures?

What's that saying about doing something the same way over and over again and expecting a different result? In this particular case, yes, the outcome was successful the second time, but there doesn't appear to have been anything learned from the failure the first time that would have reduced the risks of failure the second time.

Obviously the couple in question are unsatisfied with their medical care, and on that basis have chosen to take a case, the outcome of which will set a precedent for how this particular hospital and other hospitals will approach these types of cases in future.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is what I'm saying. How many times should a patient be subjected to trial and error procedures without first determining the cause of the previous failures?

What's that saying about doing something the same way over and over again and expecting a different result? In this particular case, yes, the outcome was successful the second time, but there doesn't appear to have been anything learned from the failure the first time that would have reduced the risks of failure the second time.

Obviously the couple in question are unsatisfied with their medical care, and on that basis have chosen to take a case, the outcome of which will set a precedent for how this particular hospital and other hospitals will approach these types of cases in future.

Sorry but there is no "couple" and the two individuals did not have "their medical care".
There was a individual who made a decision to allow the hospital to remove a body part and agreeded that after that the donation would be used in another surgery.
There was also an individual who made a decision to allow the hospital to implant someone's elses body part in them due to their own body part failing.

Glass fused light wrote: »

Sorry but there is no "couple" and the two individuals did not have "their medical care".
There was a individual who made a decision to allow the hospital to remove a body part and agreeded that after that the donation would be used in another surgery.
There was also an individual who made a decision to allow the hospital to implant someone's elses body part in them due to their own body part failing.

The article linked to in the opening post would appear to suggest otherwise -

A couple has sued Beaumont Hospital in Dublin over a failed living donor kidney transplant between a wife and her husband.

The couple have sued Beaumont Hospital Board over their care when Mrs Ryan's kidney was removed and placed in her husband during a transplant operation at the hospital on 20 January 2014.

The hospital denies the claims and denies any negligence in relation to the procedure.

Four years on, the couple remain at a loss to know exactly why the first transplant failed, Mr Maher said.

It was their case it should not have failed as there were no contra-indications.

Counsel said Mr Ryan underwent two unnecessary procedures and the case will examine the positioning of the kidney in him.

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.

That to me anyway suggests a couple who are unsatisfied with the medical care they received in the hospital in question. Yours is just a rather curious interpretation that's still saying the same thing only in a different way. The effect is still the same and your interpretation would have no bearing on changing any of the facts in the case.

Glass fused light wrote: »

Bad journalism is bad reporting, bad legal cases like this endanger the lives of people who depend on life saving donations.

My interpretation is not curious each patient in hospital is treated as an individual, the doctors just look at that patients medial care, and treat the medical issues presented by that person.

Your understanding of the legal system and medical care gets even more curious when you imagine that doctors don't take all factors relating to their patients into account when they are deciding on how to proceed with a specific course of action in any case. In this case there were two patients involved in the procedure, a couple who were related to each other, who together took a case against the Board of the hospital in relation to the standard of medical care they received at the hospital.

If the wife was suggesting that her medical treatment was deficient I would have some sympathy. But she volunteered to allow the removal of a body part, this happened without a poor medical outcome for her. Its possible that her kidney was actualy a sub-optimal but she is still in the same medical condition she would have been had the first operation been sucessful.
So what's the facts in her case which she can use to sue the hospital for poor medical care?

The woman is suggesting her medical care was deficient, demonstrated by the fact that she is taking a case against the hospital for the reasons stated in the article, and yet in spite of your claim that you would have sympathy for her if she is suggesting that her medical treatment was deficient, it doesn't appear as though you have any sympathy for her whatsoever.

The facts she is using to sue the hospital for poor medical care are laid out in the article already. It doesn't necessarily follow that she will automatically win her case. She isn't legally precluded from pursuing her case in the first place either.

He may have a case if he can prove that there was some fault in his medical care.

They have a case, obviously. Isn't it before the courts as we speak? This case is no different essentially to the many cases people are entitled to pursue when they are unsatisfied with their medical care. It happens quite often and it's really not all that unusual. Just because someone volunteers for a procedure doesn't mean they can't complain about their medical care. You appear to think it does. You'd be wrong.

If the hospital were to use your suggestion he would have had to do three operation :
kidney in which failed for a undefined reason.
kidney out and testing and
kidney in but only if the hospital can definitively prove what cause the failure of the first one and if one became available.

What would your recomendation be if the fault was his body rejecting the kidney?

Well we don't know what the fault was, which is the point of the couple in question taking the case against the hospital, because they have been offered no satisfactory explanation as to why the first procedure failed, requiring two more procedures which they contend should have been unnecessary given there were no contra-indications before the first procedure.

professore wrote: »

What a load of bullzh1t. They are not gods, they don't know everything.

I'd be the first person to agree with you on that score prof, and thankfully in most of my dealings with the medical profession, they too are the first to admit they don't know everything and can offer no guarantees. I'd sooner trust a person who admits they don't know everything and can't offer me any guarantees than someone who would lead me to believe there are no contra-indications involved in a transplant procedure. How the couple in question formed that belief is a bit of a mystery to me anyway tbh.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No contra indications means they see no reason not to go ahead with a proceedure . It means nothing at this moment is indicating a problem
No contra indication does not rule out a subsequent rejection or unexplained difficulty .
No contra indications does not mean there would be no complications .
A patient has no guarantee of no complications despite there being no obvious contra indication.

No contra indications does not mean there will be no complications . It never has

I would suggest there were major contraindications that would have been considered beforehand, which is why I suggested that it was unusual that the couple claim they believe there were none.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Posting so I can see the last post . Does anyone else get that on a long thread ? I know Dara has posted as last poster but can't read it until someone else posts after it

Happens when you thank a post on the previous page twice. It's a known issue. If you go back to the previous page you'll see where you thanked a post twice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Happens when you thank a post on the previous page twice. It's a known issue. If you go back to the previous page you'll see where you thanked a post twice.

You can't thank a post twice ? I see no post where I thanked twice ?


Ps . I stand corrected . I did find one I must have pressed twice ! How odd