The period was a edited post. I made a erroneous post originally. The emoticon in the second post was in order to express my shock and horror at the notion of one having to give up their own wheelchair when turning themselves in to prison.
smh
Do you really believe that you should be allowed to bring in your own wheelchair to prison with you? You see no potential problems with that?
I am not trying to get into a debate about the shoulds/shouldnts of allowing personal wheelchairs into prisons. I was simply commenting from a personal standpoint, as one’s wheelchair is an extension of one’s body. I didn’t know such rules were in place, that’s all.
But this is so typical of the narcissistic shit head that JM is. He’s a rather good example of the dangers of drinking and driving, as well as reckless driving. But is he going around to high schools talking about it, or taking a lead fighting drunk driving? No. His cause is fighting for things that will directly benefit him. Not even benefit the disabled community. Just him. Witness the airplane wheel chair and fitness center debacles.
You sir, have me sadly mistaken.
Put up or shut up. You can start telling me why I am wrong with this post:
True, the first post is somewhat understandable. It did look pretty hilarious considering your wheelchair track record. Like you just had to be in there regardless of whether you were adding anything of substance.
The emoticon was just pointless.
Sadly, he always chooses C) None of the above.
So are my silver glitter go-go boots, but I doubt they’ll let me keep those either, when I get sent upriver.
(Which is an excellent deterrent, by the way. Over 15,000 murder-free days so far!)
If any of us have you mistaken, it’s entirely your fault.
In the airplane thread, you advocated an expensive and pointless change of policy for nothing more than salving your own ego. It had exactly zero to do with the general needs of the disabled community.
In the parking space thread, you showed that you’re an asshole vigilante, not someone working to improve the condition of the disabled community.
In the exercise machine thread, you have revealed that you are willing to punish an institution that benefits the disabled community over a petty squabble over one exercise machine, which you continue to insist you should have been allowed to use in a dangerous manner.
And you still haven’t responded to this:
Overall, you have presented yourself as a self-righteous, egotistical, confrontational asshole and I’m guessing that your tactics overall serve to make things harder for the disabled community because your approach and attitude make people want to not accommodate you.
I was a little shocked to hear that, too - Jamie is not the first person I’ve heard say that their wheelchair is like an extension of their body. Of course there are potential problems with it, but not insurmountable ones.
He probably would have said that it was legal for him to drive since he was turning 21 in just six months and you should enforce the law as if it were then.
Originally Posted by jamiemcgarry:
“I was in a car accident in 2000 at the age of 20. I ruptured my aorta in the car accident. The accident happened in Flint, Mi. and I was helicoptered to Detroit to a hospital renowned for cardiovascular treatment/emergencies. It was the emergency surgery to repair the ruptured aorta that paralyzed me. To treat the aorta (which supplies blood from your heart to the rest of your body) a clamp was placed on the ruptured section, in order to stop the bleeding and sew it back together. Well while that clamp was on, no blood or oxygen was travelling from the point of the clamp on down (including my spinal cord). The safe time limit for an aortic clamp is 30min. Any time exceeding 30min puts the patient at risk for permanent nerve damage. My clamp was on for 62min.
<snip>
*An added wrinkle to this story is I was paralyzed due to malpractice. The surgeon who perfomed the aortic surgery had the option of using equipment which would have artificially kept my blood circulating while the clamp was on my aorta. He didn’t use the equipment, suffering from what I call the “God Complex”. If that machine had been used, I, in all likelihood, would not be paralyzed today. But that is not something I hold onto. My life is my life.”
Hmm. Stuff like this bothers me. Traumatic aortic ruptures are thought to have an overall mortality of 80-90%. Also, they don’t generally happen to people in fender benders. Anything is possible, of course, but it usually requires significant shear forces to rupture the aorta, which in turn usually implies unrestrained and/or highway speeds.
Assuming you live long enough to make it to the hospital your chances improve. Depending on your age, vitals, mechanism, etc, etc overall mortality is a mere 30% That sounds pretty low but that’s partially due to modern trauma care. Confirmed stab wounds directly to the heart have a mortality of about 13%, for comparison.
So assuming you are alive and in the hospital, if you are stable you might have the option of getting a fancy endovascular repair. Very slick. Still might get paralyzed or die but thems the breaks. But if not you get your chest cracked.
As you might imagine this is an exciting procedure for many reasons, but let’s look at the two things jamie mentioned: cross clamp time and the use of bypass. Average cross clamp time for traumatic aortic injury repair is about 40-45 minutes, with wide variation depending on location and severity of injury, overall condition of the patient, etc. 62 minutes is by no means unreasonable. It certainly doesn’t qualify as malpractice.
Bypass has been show to reduce, though not eliminate the incidence of paralysis in these types of cases. However, classic bypass is used in conjunction with blood thinners and actually increases mortality (still reduces paralysis rates though). There are various other shunt options and there are also options for blood thinner free partial bypass. However, use of all of these options carries their own risks, and require the setup and management of specialized equipment, which in turn requires specialized personnel (a perfusionist and an anesthesiologist familiar with bypass, ideally. Incidentally these are usually only available in anything approaching rapid fashion at a level I trauma center.) If nothing else getting them up and running takes time and if a patient is crashing cross clamping to ensure adequate perfusion to things like the brain is appropriate. At this point there a million things that would need to be considered when determining which surgical option is appropriate.
Basically, it comes down to this:
-
It’s almost impossible to say without having been there whether clamp and sew was the right move. But it doesn’t seem egregious on the face of it.
-
No one on this board is in a position to say, that’s for sure. That includes jamie
-
On the facts, this sure doesn’t seem like malpractice, but…
-
A paralyzed patient, even one as big a douche as jamie, is a big risk to take in front of a jury. People have a hard time distinguishing a bad outcome from bad medicine, and sometimes they just feel sorry for patients. This case is almost always settled.
So Jamie I’m curious. Did you win a judgement, or did it get settled? I would be surprised, but not shocked at the former, but I’d bet good money it was the latter.
I’m curious about the answer to this, too. I think it’s been asked several times (and if I’ve missed Jamie’s answer to that, I apologize). At one point, he said something to the effect that the results of his lawsuit speak for themselves, but I’m not quite sure what the results actually were, let alone how that statement is true.
Look, I am not getting down in the weeds with details of the malpractice suit my team of attorneys were ready to present to a jury. It was my decision to accept a settlement, as I did not want to go through the pain or difficulty of a trial.
I had competent, knowledgable expert doctors who had provided official opinions backing up our claims, as well as many other tools. We were prepared to go to trial. I did not want that, I just wanted this to be over. The whole affair was a very difficult, emotional experience to get through. It was a three-year emotional roller coaster. It was akin to putting a price tag on my life.
I am curious, if I had a frivoulous, baseless claim and the hospital and doctor (and their legal team) felt this way, what sort of settlement would be offered? I’m just curious here. The settlement was MY decision. If I had not accepted it, it would have turned into a trial. The prospect of more money was not on my radar. I just wanted this done.
*edited to add…This is not the first time I’ve mentioned it was a settlement. Ive discussed this in previous threads.
“I am curious, if I had a frivoulous, baseless claim and the hospital and doctor (and their legal team) felt this way, what sort of settlement would be offered?”
One coverable by their malpractice insurance, I’m sure. It is highly likely that the amount you received was also mostly, if not completely, paid by their insurance companies.
Jamie, what do you do for a living? Just curious.
Thank you for all this - it was pretty much what I expected, but it’s good to hear from someone who seems to know what they’re talking about.
People keep saying things like “he didn’t deserve to end up disabled” or “it was just a youthful mistake”, but that’s not the point. Of course he didn’t ‘deserve’ it, and of course we all got away with things in our youth that could have had extremely dire consequences, but none of that means jack shit with regard to malpractice. Of course it’s possible that there really was medical malpractice, but I’m much more inclined to believe that it was just a shitty situation with hard choices for the surgeon and a range of potentially negative outcomes. The fact that he sued the doctor after his life was saved seems very petty to me (of course my feelings on this are coloured by the general impressions of douchebaggery I get from the guy).
In other news - I was thinking earlier today that Jamie’s idea of activism is similar to organizations like Greenpeace and PETA. Ultimately they all have noble goals in mind, but the abrasive and sometimes abusive way they choose to pursue them is completely counterproductive. I am all for environmentalism and I love animals, but after watching a couple of Greenpeace or PETA videos I seriously want to toss litter about willy-nilly and stab a cute little lamb in the eye with a fork. Jamie - your vigilantism will end up having the same effect. Clearly you are incapable of seeing it, but you are actually damaging the very cause you claim to hold dear. After an altercation with you, a person is much more likely to look at another disabled person and think “that guy is probably a jackass with a chip on his shoulder who will freak out if I try to engage him - better avoid that”. After hearing about your frivolous lawsuiting, other businesses are going to think “catering to the handicapped is clearly just going to lead to complaints that we’re not doing enough - better to ignore that market”. Your actions are having the net effect of making life worse for the handicapped. Is that really what you want?
Actually, I was thinking more like Whale Wars. Plus Wheelchair Wars has that great alliteration!
Isn’t Whale Wars related to Greenpeace? Maybe not. Nonetheless, that’s actually one of the ones I was thinking of - those people make me want to go find whale steaks to try - I bet they’re delicious!