Oh, good. A giant wall of text all about YOU and how you’re being persecuted. NOW I find you interesting!
Jamie, there are things you can do for your fellow man that are more important than being a parking lot vigilante. Number one is this- print out every one of your threads and make yourself an appointment with a therapist. You have way too much anger inside of you and you need to find a healthy way to purge yourself of it. This isn’t good for you or anyone else. Life is far too short to get an aneurysm every time you see a car parked in a handicapped spot.
Fancy’s himself Rick Hansen. He ain’t, not by a long, long shot, and never, ever will be.
He’s not a crusader for anything, he’s just a bitter, aggressive, asshole who’s hobby is battling.
Yes: put your money in vaginas.
Because driving drunk shows that the pre-injury Jamie dealt the same type of callous disrepect of other people’s lives and needs that he shows after the accident.
It’s even worse than that, of course - at least (as far as we know) Jamie didn’t take any innocent people out with him when he had his accident.
In short: Had he not made the decision to be a drunk driver, he wouldn’t be paralyzed. Suing the doctor is nothing more than a transferance of guilt, a transferance he shouldn’t be allowed to make.
Has it been confirmed that he was drunk? I don’t believe it has, just that he had been drinking.
He hasn’t confirmed it exactly but in the post linked to in #88 Jamie says:
JamieMcGarry: Yes, alcohol was present in my system at the time of the accident. While not the determining factor in the accident, my blood levels were 0.06, if I were to be honest, I would have to consider this in the possibilities of what caused the accident
As much as I dislike the target of the OP, I still must say that regardless of the reason for his visit to a doctor, the doctor still had the responsibility to treat him competently. If the doctor was negligent, then the doctor is open to a legitimate suit for malpractice.
.06 is within the legal limit. Granted he was 20 years old, and under the legal age. But drunk driving was most certainly not the cause of the accident.
Exactly. I do not understand how anyone could think differently on this point.
How have you determined this to be so, when even Jamie says that he can’t rule it out?
***And excuse the technical difficulties, I took a phone call at work and was destracted.
I agree, however, I do wonder if malpractice was actually found to have occurred by the court - or if Jamie threatened to sue and took a settlement. Big difference.
The doctor may have done everything as competently as any doctor possibly could, but would rather settle with the squeaky wheelchair guy than see his (already expensive) malpractice insurance premiums rise and go through a lengthy court case.
Jamie - Could you shed any light on this?
It’s not within the legal limit if one is under the legal age to imbibe. The legal limit for individuals in his jurisdiction, as has been noted by another poster earlier in this thread, is zero.
I was speaking of the responsibility of the doctors, not any moral judgment of Jamie. Some people are getting stuck on their visceral reaction to the intoxicated driving.
Saying if person A hadn’t done this then this later action by B wouldn’t have happened is a pointless and arbitrary exercise. There is always a preceding action by somebody else. Every single thing that happens to you in your entire life is at some level the product of countless prior choices by other people.
Other than congenital conditions, most people in hospitals are there as a consequence of some decision of their own, as well–to go bicycling without a helmet, to eat fatty foods, to mine coal, to have unprotected sex, to watch TV instead of exercising. Whatever. Judge them for those if you like.
None of that has anything to do with the doctors’ responsibility for what they do.
Indeed. Put your money where your mouth is.
Regards,
Shodan
Classic harping over technicalities. I love it. The point is that a BAC of .06 has not been deemed to be legally drunk. The reason why he was over the limit was his age, not because his alcohol consumption had rendered him legally intoxicated.
Hopefully this will be the last time anyone has to say this. Can we please get back to discussing what an enormous douche mcgarry is? Many thanks.
To clear up any confusion my point was not that the doctor should’nt be held responsible for his actions. If the doctor did screw up, Jamie should be compensated. My point was addressed to Really Not All That Bright, specifically, when he (or she?) was trying to excuse Jamie from any responsibility at all by saying he was young and stupid and didn’t deserve to be paralyzed. Of course he doesn’t, no one does, but you can’t divorce the fact that he did something really irresponsible, which almost killed him, from the fact that he is now paralyzed. It’s unfortunate, and most of us hope that when we do something stupid, the consequences will be in proportion to our actions, but sometimes they are not. If Jamie had walked away from this accident and his passanger was injured and eventually paralyzed in the same manner, I think the reaction would be different here.
But it still has an effect on driving .Cite.
And drivers of commercial vehicles are legally drunk at .04 %
Ah, so we are going to continue harping on this asinine point.
I don’t know where you (voltaire) get this. Meyer6’s link indicates that these complications occur frequently even when the emergency surgical team is using “all the tools” and all possible professional skills.
A patient with massive trauma including a (likely) crushed chest containing a ruptured aorta doesn’t just have that chest cracked open and the blood vessel sutured up like zipping your fly. Just keeping the patient alive takes significant attention and effort, part of which is clamping that major vessel, otherwise the patient can bleed out in minutes. Getting everything else under enough control to allow for repair of the vessel takes some time. In this case it took so much time that the patient’s nervous system suffered trauma from oxygen deprivation. But we have no reason to believe that the time delay was not completely necessary. Had the clamp not been affixed he would be dead instead of paralyzed.