Re: UK ng-con't the other half of the story?

[Guest guest]

weavfl wrote:

> For a full picture of the branding-

> see The Lexington Herald Leader article

> on Kentucky.com:

> http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/5030275.htm

>

> I see that J. Guiler, MD, is a member of

> AAGL and the photo looks like a laparoscopic

> shot....

If this was indeed a laparoscopic hysterectomy, branding would be moot

and entirely indefensible. The whole thing would be morcellated out.

I think we need more details of the surgery.

Carla Dionne

[Guest guest]

Carla,

The story landed on NBC's Today Show:

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wlex/M266409.asp

Yes, I would agree and details will most likely

emerge. Dr. J. Guiler has 18 or so days

to respond to the lawsuit. Imagine his attorneys

are handling him now.

Surely he would have to conform to the Pathology

Lab at Central Baptist Hospital in Lexington, KY

where the surgery was performed. And that Laboratory

should be governed by Protocol standards ie,

the College of American Pathology.

http:www.cap.org

CAP Public Policy Compendium (accessible only

by membership to cap)

http://cap.org/governance/policies/index.html

Scroll down to see coverage as

Fraud/Abuse, Guidelines,

Pathologic Specimens-

Stewardship of Pathologic Specimens

Surgical Specimens to be submitted to Pathology.

I'm confident with intense media scrutiny...

Dr. Guiler will be ...exonerated or..excoriated

as well as those involved with him, the Pathology

Lab, the Hospital.

I was reviewing some of the major newspapers in

Kentucky---the state looks like something out of

a 3rd world scenario-poor economy, poor health,

poor environment...kind of a grotesque reminder

of how lucky most of us are, to get the health

care we need...

Marsha

> If this was indeed a laparoscopic hysterectomy, branding would be

moot

> and entirely indefensible. The whole thing would be morcellated

out.

>

> I think we need more details of the surgery.

>

> Carla Dionne

[Guest guest]

Carla Dionne wrote:

> If this was indeed a laparoscopic hysterectomy, branding would be moot

> and entirely indefensible. The whole thing would be morcellated out.

>

> I think we need more details of the surgery.

I want to clarify this post a bit so misinterpretation of the intent of

my post doesn't occur.

My understanding is that the surgeon's " defense " of his branding in this

case had to do with specimen identification in the lab. While I simply

don't believe there is any justification at all for his actions and find

it entirely despicable, it would seem to me that his " defense " to his

patients in light of the type of surgery performed (laparoscopic

hysterectomy with, no doubt, uterine morcellation) completely ludicrous.

His creepy and somewhat meager defense needs explanation. I want more

details and think we all need more details.

For instance, other women noted uterus branding on their tapes -- but

what I want to know is why they wouldn't think it odd to see branding,

followed by morcellation on the tape? Why are they supporting this

doc's actions?

And, under what circumstances would any docs think they can do this,

explain it away to patients making inquiries, and feel like they can

continue doing it without potential patient recourse? Just how much

friggin' ego does it take for a doc to do this, over and over again,

even in light of receiving inquiries from patients about it?

It was not, however, my intent to imply the doc had a defense worthy of

any justification -- rather that I thought it odd he would use this

" defense " at all when it's quite clear that a lap hyst would result in

no specimen going to any lab with initials on it after it was clearly

morcellated out in the removal process. (And, if his patients thought

any differently, just how " informed " were they of the procedures they

consented to and underwent?)

Hope I didn't just muddy this up even more instead of clarifying my

intent behind my original quick post on this.....

carla dionne

[Guest guest]

I saw one of the doctor's patients on NBC this

morning, the woman who thought it was amusing. She

said that she had six tumors, no mention of cancer. I

wondered if she had fibroids.

In my opinion, this isn't a matter of branding a

uterus, which is horrendous in itself, but of branding

a human being! From what I have read and heard, the

branding occurred BEFORE the uterus was removed. I

guess the patient should give thanks for anesthesia.

I think the doctor's explanation stinks. If the

surgery was laparoscopic, then the branding would be

destroyed during removal of the tissue. If the uterus

was not removed laparoscopically, then wouldn't

cauterizing the tissue interfere with any pathology

exam?

I will definitely be looking for the details of this

story.

--- Carla Dionne wrote:

> weavfl wrote:

>

> > For a full picture of the branding-

> > see The Lexington Herald Leader article

> > on Kentucky.com:

> >

>

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/5030275.htm

> >

> > I see that J. Guiler, MD, is a member of

> > AAGL and the photo looks like a laparoscopic

> > shot....

>

>

> If this was indeed a laparoscopic hysterectomy,

> branding would be moot

> and entirely indefensible. The whole thing would be

> morcellated out.

>

> I think we need more details of the surgery.

>

> Carla Dionne

[Guest guest]

The doctor was on the Today show this morning. He said the reason

for the " branding " was because of the type of hyst he performs. He

starts out laparoscopically and marks the uterus which he then

removes vaginally. He says that the markings help him to orient

himself in this situation. He says that he marks the midline and

uses the U and K so he is clear on what he is looking at. Sorry, I

am not good at explaining exactly what he said. I checked the Today

show site and this was not in their archives yet.

>

> > If this was indeed a laparoscopic hysterectomy, branding would be

moot

> > and entirely indefensible. The whole thing would be morcellated

out.

> >

> > I think we need more details of the surgery.

>

>

> I want to clarify this post a bit so misinterpretation of the

intent of

> my post doesn't occur.

>

> My understanding is that the surgeon's " defense " of his branding in

this

> case had to do with specimen identification in the lab. While I

simply

> don't believe there is any justification at all for his actions and

find

> it entirely despicable, it would seem to me that his " defense " to

his

> patients in light of the type of surgery performed (laparoscopic

> hysterectomy with, no doubt, uterine morcellation) completely

ludicrous.

> His creepy and somewhat meager defense needs explanation. I want

more

> details and think we all need more details.

>

> For instance, other women noted uterus branding on their tapes --

but

> what I want to know is why they wouldn't think it odd to see

branding,

> followed by morcellation on the tape? Why are they supporting this

> doc's actions?

>

> And, under what circumstances would any docs think they can do

this,

> explain it away to patients making inquiries, and feel like they

can

> continue doing it without potential patient recourse? Just how

much

> friggin' ego does it take for a doc to do this, over and over

again,

> even in light of receiving inquiries from patients about it?

>

> It was not, however, my intent to imply the doc had a defense

worthy of

> any justification -- rather that I thought it odd he would use this

> " defense " at all when it's quite clear that a lap hyst would result

in

> no specimen going to any lab with initials on it after it was

clearly

> morcellated out in the removal process. (And, if his patients

thought

> any differently, just how " informed " were they of the procedures

they

> consented to and underwent?)

>

> Hope I didn't just muddy this up even more instead of clarifying my

> intent behind my original quick post on this.....

>

> carla dionne

[Guest guest]

Cecile,

You are right on, just keep posting....

I just went to google, typed in " surgical

mistakes and marking patients " ...reams of info,

reams of medical mistakes from not marking...

surgical mistakes due to not marking...

.....if UK orients Guiler spatially and

prevents him or residents from making

a mistake?

I think the lawsuit is going to be dismissed.

I'm ready to drop the subject.

Thank-you, Cecile

Marsha

> The doctor was on the Today show this morning. He said the reason

> for the " branding " was because of the type of hyst he performs. He

> starts out laparoscopically and marks the uterus which he then

> removes vaginally. He says that the markings help him to orient

> himself in this situation. He says that he marks the midline and

> uses the U and K so he is clear on what he is looking at. Sorry, I

> am not good at explaining exactly what he said. I checked the

Today

> show site and this was not in their archives yet.

[Guest guest]

I had a client yesterday, a seal team instructor, that almost had the wrong knee

done last year, and

so this year he made them mark ther knee in front of him. haha. gg

" weavfl " wrote:

> Cecile,

> You are right on, just keep posting....

> I just went to google, typed in " surgical

> mistakes and marking patients " ...reams of info,

> reams of medical mistakes from not marking...

> surgical mistakes due to not marking...

>

> ....if UK orients Guiler spatially and

> prevents him or residents from making

> a mistake?

>

> I think the lawsuit is going to be dismissed.

> I'm ready to drop the subject.

>

> Thank-you, Cecile

>

> Marsha

>

>

> > The doctor was on the Today show this morning. He said the reason

> > for the " branding " was because of the type of hyst he performs. He

> > starts out laparoscopically and marks the uterus which he then

> > removes vaginally. He says that the markings help him to orient

> > himself in this situation. He says that he marks the midline and

> > uses the U and K so he is clear on what he is looking at. Sorry, I

> > am not good at explaining exactly what he said. I checked the

> Today

> > show site and this was not in their archives yet.

>

>