Re: Scenario: Telemedicine and the law

[Guest guest]

Assuming that proper, informed consent was obtained, and that a protocol for

screening and administering thrombolytics was followed, then no one should

be sued.

The wife would be seeking to sue on the basis of negligence- perhaps stating

that something wasn't done properly. In this case, who had a duty to the

injured party? The physician certainly: the patient is under his care, even

though at a distance. The medic also had a duty to treat the mans injury.

The man died under the care of the Bermudan escort, who also had a duty of

care. Although one can make the claim the captain of the ship had a duty of

care, there was no breach of that duty (one of the three tests of

negligence). He ensured the man received medical treatment- determining the

right or wrong of pushing meds is not his duty.

If there was a breach of the duty to care by the physician or medics, then

there is a viable case, as the man certainly suffered injury. For example,

the physician may not have enquired into the mans history sufficiently, or

may have misread the ekg. The medic may not have taken an adequate history,

or perhaps had no training in thrombolytics.

The woman could sue the individuals involved, and also their employers under

the concept of vicarious liability. However, assuming nobody screwed up,

the wife may have a hard time of it in court. Defenses in this case would

include volenti non fit injuria-“that no injury can be done to the willing”,

if the medic had obtained true informed consent. The guy knew and consented

to the fact that the drug could kill him, and as far as the law of torts is

concerned, no person who has consented to the infliction of an act on

himself can expect to find a legal redress for the consequences of that act.

Another defense would be that of necessity- that although the risk of death

was more than usual from the drug, the benefit outweighed the risk, and

hence was necessary.

None of which means the wife won't end up winning enough money to buy her

own cruise line.

Jim

p.s. Good brain teaser. Makes you realize just how important documentation

and informed consent really are.

disclaimer- I am not a lawyer, and post this as a hypothetical excercise

with no relation to actual events.

Scenario: Telemedicine and the law

Folks,

Here's a small brainteaser.

A British owned and registered cruise liner is

currently in international waters.

One of the passengers complains of chest pain and

the nurse on board (Italian resident and trained

in his country too) takes a 12 lead ECG. This is

then transmitted to a 24 hour response centre in

the US. One of the duty cardiologists diagnoses

this as a heart attack and authorises the use of a

clot busting drug.

The captain of the ship (Algerian) gives

permission for the keys for the drugs locker to be

given to one of the pursers team. The cabinet is

unlocked, the nurse and the purser countersign for

morphine and a clot busting drug which is a

approved by the US FDA.

The patient (Canadian) is talked through his

condition and the administration of the drug and

his wife (Canadian) signs the patient report form.

Both are medivaced by helicopter to a hospital in

the Carribean. En route the patient has a stroke,

his heart condition worsens and he goes into

cardiac arrest and dies despite the best efforts

of the medical escort (Bermudan).

The widow is now looking to take legal action. Who

does she sue and where?

Ross

[Guest guest]

Hi Ross,

Probably British law as the vessel is registered as British.

However, Americans reserve the right to sue in America for actions undertaken

anywhere in the world.

What was the nationality of the patient?

Cheers

Anton

In message <ACEPKDPKAOBGINBGKJABAEPGEFAA.ross.boardman@...> " Ross

Boardman " <ross.boardman@...> writes:

> Folks,

>

> Here's a small brainteaser.

>

> A British owned and registered cruise liner is

> currently in international waters.

>

> One of the passengers complains of chest pain and

> the nurse on board (Italian resident and trained

> in his country too) takes a 12 lead ECG. This is

> then transmitted to a 24 hour response centre in

> the US. One of the duty cardiologists diagnoses

> this as a heart attack and authorises the use of a

> clot busting drug.

>

> The captain of the ship (Algerian) gives

> permission for the keys for the drugs locker to be

> given to one of the pursers team. The cabinet is

> unlocked, the nurse and the purser countersign for

> morphine and a clot busting drug which is a

> approved by the US FDA.

>

> The patient (Canadian) is talked through his

> condition and the administration of the drug and

> his wife (Canadian) signs the patient report form.

> Both are medivaced by helicopter to a hospital in

> the Carribean. En route the patient has a stroke,

> his heart condition worsens and he goes into

> cardiac arrest and dies despite the best efforts

> of the medical escort (Bermudan).

>

> The widow is now looking to take legal action. Who

> does she sue and where?

>

> Ross

>

>

>

> Member Information:

>

> List owner: Ian Sharpe Owner@...

> Editor: Ross Boardman Editor@...

>

> ALL list admin messages (subscriptions & unsubscriptions) should be sent to

the list owner.

>

> Post message: egroups

>

> Pleaes visit our website http://www.remotemedics.co.uk

>

> Regards

>

> The Remote Medics Team

>

>

[Guest guest]

In message <NAEHJIAPNPLBNJEJLKDEKEJJCCAA.jdawdy@...> " Jim Dawdy "

<jdawdy@...> writes:

> Assuming that proper, informed consent was obtained, and that a protocol for

> screening and administering thrombolytics was followed, then no one should

> be sued.

>

> The wife would be seeking to sue on the basis of negligence- perhaps stating

> that something wasn't done properly. In this case, who had a duty to the

> injured party? The physician certainly: the patient is under his care, even

> though at a distance. The medic also had a duty to treat the mans injury.

> The man died under the care of the Bermudan escort, who also had a duty of

> care. Although one can make the claim the captain of the ship had a duty of

> care, there was no breach of that duty (one of the three tests of

> negligence). He ensured the man received medical treatment- determining the

> right or wrong of pushing meds is not his duty.

>

> If there was a breach of the duty to care by the physician or medics, then

> there is a viable case, as the man certainly suffered injury. For example,

> the physician may not have enquired into the mans history sufficiently, or

> may have misread the ekg. The medic may not have taken an adequate history,

> or perhaps had no training in thrombolytics.

>

> The woman could sue the individuals involved, and also their employers under

> the concept of vicarious liability. However, assuming nobody screwed up,

> the wife may have a hard time of it in court. Defenses in this case would

> include volenti non fit injuria-“that no injury can be done to the willing”,

> if the medic had obtained true informed consent. The guy knew and consented

> to the fact that the drug could kill him, and as far as the law of torts is

> concerned, no person who has consented to the infliction of an act on

> himself can expect to find a legal redress for the consequences of that act.

> Another defense would be that of necessity- that although the risk of death

> was more than usual from the drug, the benefit outweighed the risk, and

> hence was necessary.

>

> None of which means the wife won't end up winning enough money to buy her

> own cruise line.

>

> Jim

>

> p.s. Good brain teaser. Makes you realize just how important documentation

> and informed consent really are.

>

> disclaimer- I am not a lawyer, and post this as a hypothetical excercise

> with no relation to actual events.

> Scenario: Telemedicine and the law

>

>

> Folks,

>

> Here's a small brainteaser.

>

> A British owned and registered cruise liner is

> currently in international waters.

>

> One of the passengers complains of chest pain and

> the nurse on board (Italian resident and trained

> in his country too) takes a 12 lead ECG. This is

> then transmitted to a 24 hour response centre in

> the US. One of the duty cardiologists diagnoses

> this as a heart attack and authorises the use of a

> clot busting drug.

>

> The captain of the ship (Algerian) gives

> permission for the keys for the drugs locker to be

> given to one of the pursers team. The cabinet is

> unlocked, the nurse and the purser countersign for

> morphine and a clot busting drug which is a

> approved by the US FDA.

>

> The patient (Canadian) is talked through his

> condition and the administration of the drug and

> his wife (Canadian) signs the patient report form.

> Both are medivaced by helicopter to a hospital in

> the Carribean. En route the patient has a stroke,

> his heart condition worsens and he goes into

> cardiac arrest and dies despite the best efforts

> of the medical escort (Bermudan).

>

> The widow is now looking to take legal action. Who

> does she sue and where?

>

> Ross

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Anton,

Patient and wife, Canadians.

Ross

>

> Hi Ross,

>

> Probably British law as the vessel is

> registered as British.

>

> However, Americans reserve the right to

> sue in America for actions undertaken

> anywhere in the world.

>

> What was the nationality of the patient?

>

> Cheers

> Anton

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim,

Devil's advocate, I would argue he did not have capacity to consent due to

emotional distress as a result of his medical condition ...

Cheers

Anton

In message <200305041430.h44EUwGZ019883@...>

anton.vandellen@... writes:

> In message <NAEHJIAPNPLBNJEJLKDEKEJJCCAA.jdawdy@...> " Jim Dawdy "

<jdawdy@...> writes:

> > Assuming that proper, informed consent was obtained, and that a protocol for

> > screening and administering thrombolytics was followed, then no one should

> > be sued.

> >

> > The wife would be seeking to sue on the basis of negligence- perhaps stating

> > that something wasn't done properly. In this case, who had a duty to the

> > injured party? The physician certainly: the patient is under his care, even

> > though at a distance. The medic also had a duty to treat the mans injury.

> > The man died under the care of the Bermudan escort, who also had a duty of

> > care. Although one can make the claim the captain of the ship had a duty of

> > care, there was no breach of that duty (one of the three tests of

> > negligence). He ensured the man received medical treatment- determining the

> > right or wrong of pushing meds is not his duty.

> >

> > If there was a breach of the duty to care by the physician or medics, then

> > there is a viable case, as the man certainly suffered injury. For example,

> > the physician may not have enquired into the mans history sufficiently, or

> > may have misread the ekg. The medic may not have taken an adequate history,

> > or perhaps had no training in thrombolytics.

> >

> > The woman could sue the individuals involved, and also their employers under

> > the concept of vicarious liability. However, assuming nobody screwed up,

> > the wife may have a hard time of it in court. Defenses in this case would

> > include volenti non fit injuria-“that no injury can be done to the willing”,

> > if the medic had obtained true informed consent. The guy knew and consented

> > to the fact that the drug could kill him, and as far as the law of torts is

> > concerned, no person who has consented to the infliction of an act on

> > himself can expect to find a legal redress for the consequences of that act.

> > Another defense would be that of necessity- that although the risk of death

> > was more than usual from the drug, the benefit outweighed the risk, and

> > hence was necessary.

> >

> > None of which means the wife won't end up winning enough money to buy her

> > own cruise line.

> >

> > Jim

> >

> > p.s. Good brain teaser. Makes you realize just how important documentation

> > and informed consent really are.

> >

> > disclaimer- I am not a lawyer, and post this as a hypothetical excercise

> > with no relation to actual events.

> > Scenario: Telemedicine and the law

> >

> >

> > Folks,

> >

> > Here's a small brainteaser.

> >

> > A British owned and registered cruise liner is

> > currently in international waters.

> >

> > One of the passengers complains of chest pain and

> > the nurse on board (Italian resident and trained

> > in his country too) takes a 12 lead ECG. This is

> > then transmitted to a 24 hour response centre in

> > the US. One of the duty cardiologists diagnoses

> > this as a heart attack and authorises the use of a

> > clot busting drug.

> >

> > The captain of the ship (Algerian) gives

> > permission for the keys for the drugs locker to be

> > given to one of the pursers team. The cabinet is

> > unlocked, the nurse and the purser countersign for

> > morphine and a clot busting drug which is a

> > approved by the US FDA.

> >

> > The patient (Canadian) is talked through his

> > condition and the administration of the drug and

> > his wife (Canadian) signs the patient report form.

> > Both are medivaced by helicopter to a hospital in

> > the Carribean. En route the patient has a stroke,

> > his heart condition worsens and he goes into

> > cardiac arrest and dies despite the best efforts

> > of the medical escort (Bermudan).

> >

> > The widow is now looking to take legal action. Who

> > does she sue and where?

> >

> > Ross

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

All

A wee question.

Who declared him fit to fly????

Cheers

Philip.

-- Scenario: Telemedicine and the law

> >

> >

> > Folks,

> >

> > Here's a small brainteaser.

> >

> > A British owned and registered cruise liner is

> > currently in international waters.

> >

> > One of the passengers complains of chest pain and

> > the nurse on board (Italian resident and trained

> > in his country too) takes a 12 lead ECG. This is

> > then transmitted to a 24 hour response centre in

> > the US. One of the duty cardiologists diagnoses

> > this as a heart attack and authorises the use of a

> > clot busting drug.

> >

> > The captain of the ship (Algerian) gives

> > permission for the keys for the drugs locker to be

> > given to one of the pursers team. The cabinet is

> > unlocked, the nurse and the purser countersign for

> > morphine and a clot busting drug which is a

> > approved by the US FDA.

> >

> > The patient (Canadian) is talked through his

> > condition and the administration of the drug and

> > his wife (Canadian) signs the patient report form.

> > Both are medivaced by helicopter to a hospital in

> > the Carribean. En route the patient has a stroke,

> > his heart condition worsens and he goes into

> > cardiac arrest and dies despite the best efforts

> > of the medical escort (Bermudan).

> >

> > The widow is now looking to take legal action. Who

> > does she sue and where?

> >

> > Ross

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

BODY {font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;}

Pardon my ignorance here, but even considering the far reaching jaws of

American tort lawyers, wouldn't shark repellant prevent a lawsuit on the

" high seas " ? And they don't have motels in Den Haag anyway, Do they? Where

would they stay during the trial?

[Guest guest]

Jerry et al,

sorry mate your sue em all case has failed because you forgot the

ships chef/cook who used non vegetable fats for the food so add them to the

list.

Matt

PS Jerry did you sort out the cash with Cal???

_________________________________________________________________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

the answer is everyone from the captain to the last person to help