That’s what recent evidence suggests and it’s in keeping with all the latest buzz. Well, a jury didn’t buy it and it cost the docs $3 million bucks. (The fact that they didn’t follow their own procedures for supervising midlevels didn’t help).
Via Kevin.
2 comments:
The docs tried to make the issue of supervision irrelevant by testifying that they would've treated her the same way, under the same circumstances. And, as we find out more, they would've been right.
This case has nothing to do with good medical care and malpractice. It has everything to do with the the prevalence of the individual belief in their omnipotence: Adverse outcomes are not only, by definition, attributable to a distinct "other," they have the societal value of an offense, or even a sin.
The details of the case are vague... if she had diabetes (causing immunosuppression), then antibiotics wouldn't be appropriate if it were a rapidly spreading fungal infection like mucormycosis. However, steroids as a treatment for anything remotely infectious in origin seems like a bad idea.
Post a Comment