Mouldy Punk Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 How random...going in to give birth, come out without any limbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurë Veteran Posted February 17, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 17, 2007 It resides in the nose's of a lot of people, but is harmless till its under the skin. It usually eats away at the limbs first. Legs are the first hit usually.However, this is weird, there is no way it would just hit like that, there is usually a lot of time for doctors to tell you that you have it. Maybe that is where they screwed up - not finding or acting on it. This is pretty tragic. I didn't see anything in that article to suggest there was definately no consent though. Did I miss that part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitebread Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Man, are you ****ing serious? **** someones privacy, this woman got her arms and legs ripped off. Then they say they can't tell her WHY because it would violate someones privacy? you've got to be kidding me. "Ma'am, we took your arms and legs off, but we can't tell you why because it's a private matter." Her arms and legs aren't a ****ing private matter?Yes, I am indeed serious. I think that a right is only a right until it infringes on someone elses' right(s). I feel bad for the woman who lost her limbs, but if the hospital violated my right to privacy you better believe I would be quite upset. We have enough intrusion into our private lives as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macstorm Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 That's disgusting man! :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurë Veteran Posted February 18, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 18, 2007 Yes, I am indeed serious. I think that a right is only a right until it infringes on someone elses' right(s). I feel bad for the woman who lost her limbs, but if the hospital violated my right to privacy you better believe I would be quite upset. We have enough intrusion into our private lives as it is. But that person's right to privacy is infringing on her right to know what happened and why. So really a compromise is needed - whose rights should get priority in this case? Is it possible to protect the rights of both parties - i.e. by not personally identifying the other person, just explaining their part, or alleged part, in the events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 It resides in the nose's of a lot of people, but is harmless till its under the skin. It usually eats away at the limbs first. Legs are the first hit usually.However, this is weird, there is no way it would just hit like that, there is usually a lot of time for doctors to tell you that you have it. qft... i have it, and every once in a while it gets under my skin via a boil or something small, then it grows into a cyst. it hurts like hell just to move when one gets infected, surely it was something else. i don't believe that was the main cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitebread Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 But that person's right to privacy is infringing on her right to know what happened and why. So really a compromise is needed - whose rights should get priority in this case? Is it possible to protect the rights of both parties - i.e. by not personally identifying the other person, just explaining their part, or alleged part, in the events?Exactly the point I was trying to make. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted February 18, 2007 Subscriber¹ Share Posted February 18, 2007 Wow, looks like her child really did cost her an arm and a leg... twice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Meh, I wish I haven't seen this thread. Poor woman :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwind Hawk Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Yes, I am indeed serious. I think that a right is only a right until it infringes on someone elses' right(s). I feel bad for the woman who lost her limbs, but if the hospital violated my right to privacy you better believe I would be quite upset. We have enough intrusion into our private lives as it is. How could it involve others' rights though? If you went in for a checkup at the doctors, and came out as a woman, how would anybody ELSE'S privacy be threatened if they explained why they had to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitebread Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 How could it involve others' rights though? If you went in for a checkup at the doctors, and came out as a woman, how would anybody ELSE'S privacy be threatened if they explained why they had to do that?A valid question, to be sure. While I don't have an answer for it, I'm sure there is a rationale for them asserting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 wow...that really sucks...:( Someone messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresiststance2003 Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Damn son... that sucks. NOFX - She's Nubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guol Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 That is overly screwd up. She deserves the right to know what happened to her. I mean, how would another patient's privacy be infringed by them telling her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srjallan Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Babies do really cost an arm and a leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyyPunk Veteran Posted February 18, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 18, 2007 The only way I could see this involving another patient is if on the patients room, they stuck the wrong info for the wrong patient, and thought this woman was supposed to be getting her arms/legs amputated. they cant tell her why because it was the other patients info on why they were going to get that done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psybapunk Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Damn son... that sucks.NOFX - She's Nubs Oh, I've gotta load up my NOFX albums now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtchange Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Anyone else notice that this article is from January of 2006? It's too bad about her and all...but this is over a year old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2687 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 This is the most recent article I could find. Amputee can see hospital records The Orlando Sentinel Rene Stutzman June 24, 2006 A lawyer for Orlando Regional Healthcare System Inc. said Friday that the company's Longwood hospital was not the source of a flesh-eating bacteria that infected a young woman who had just given birth, requiring doctors to amputate both her arms and legs.Still, a judge ordered the company to release the records of any other patients who had similar diagnoses. On April 28, 2005, Claudia Mejia was admitted to Orlando Regional South Seminole Hospital in Longwood and delivered a healthy baby boy, but she soon developed a fever and got very sick. Doctors discovered the infection, a form of streptococcal A, then transferred her to the company's main hospital, Orlando Regional Medical Center, where she went into shock, lost consciousness, developed gangrene and lost kidney function. Twelve days after she gave birth, doctors amputated all four limbs to save her life. Mejia sued Orlando Regional in January, asking that it be forced to surrender information about any other patients with the same type of infection and related medical problems, such as toxic-shock syndrome and gangrene. She has not filed a malpractice suit. One of her lawyers, E. Clay Parker, said Friday that he thinks the type of infection Mejia contracted was 'a systemic problem' at South Seminole. He said he needs information about any other cases to determine whether infections were properly reported to state authorities and dealt with. Circuit Judge Clayton D. Simmons ruled that Florida's Constitution required the hospital to release records. 'Any strep case would be relevant,' he said. That was a victory for Mejia. 'We're very pleased with the court's ruling,' Parker said. Still in dispute, though, is how many and which patient records the hospital must provide. Hospital attorney Jennings 'Bucky' Hurt III urged the judge not to order the release of hundreds of patient records. 'We have the privacy issue,' Hurt said. He asked that the release be limited to patients who were at the hospital near the time of Mejia's hospitalization. Otherwise, it could cost millions of dollars if the hospital company had to surrender 2,200 records, the number of patients who suffered from the same disorders as Mejia, he said. 'We have spent hundreds of hours investigating this case,' Hurt said. 'We cannot find any other person in proximity to her with strep A.' When asked if he believed Mejia got the infection at South Seminole Hospital, he said: 'I don't think she did. . . . She had a very unique form of strep A.' The judge predicted lawyers would be back in court soon to argue again over which case records the hospital company must release. http://www.topix.net/content/trb/038415781...SHBSCI29QEIRK9O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwind Hawk Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If that's all true, then the first article was pretty biased :unsure: It's nearly a complete different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitebread Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If that's all true, then the first article was pretty biased :unsure: It's nearly a complete different story.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokeripa Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I prefer to die that getting quad-amputated :| Same here. That is ****ing sick, especially not asking her or even TELLING her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuudJacobs.NET Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Reading the 2nd article I really think it's a good thing she didn't sue them for malpractice. She is lucky to be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 She is lucky to be alive. That's a negatory Ghost Rider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted February 21, 2007 Veteran Share Posted February 21, 2007 She's upset she can't hold her child, i'd bet she would be even more upset if the doctors left her to die. She's upset they won't tell her who else had it, not that they saved her life (although it would be a shock to wake up and find out, but at least she's alive and gets to see her child grow up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts