IOW, she isn't competent to make a decision now, but in several months she will be?
I don't buy that.
I don't buy that.
Propofol
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
Gary F
Final Approach
That's the law and backed up by the judge's decision. If a guy had sex with her the day before she reaches the age of consent he could go to prison even if she begged for it. There are plenty of examples of things that are permissible or forbidden depending on the calendar or clock.
airguy
Cleared for Takeoff
If she thinks (mother or daughter - either of them) that she can beat cancer without treatment, then she is not competent now, nor will she be then.
Hmmmmm...
Any court can take any situation and change the age of accountability at any time......
Case in point.. Or multiple cases for that matter......
Look at all the juveniles who are considered adults when they kill or commit other felonies.....
If the courts can do that, they surely can find this 17 year old competent to make her OWN decisions....
Gary F
Final Approach
That's why it went before the judge.Hmmmmm...
Any court can take any situation and change the age of accountability at any time......
Case in point.. Or multiple cases for that matter......
Look at all the juveniles who are considered adults when they kill or commit other felonies.....
If the courts can do that, they surely can find this 17 year old competent to make her OWN decisions....
That's not what I was challenging. It is the right of self determination that is being taken from her. Were she asking for an abortion, the state would be happy to comply regardless of her age. Now they're saying she isn't competent to make such a decision. I see it as a double standard.
Gary F
Final Approach
Children do not have the right of self determination. I believe that the judge could have allowed the woman the ability to refuse treatment but elected not to do so. The judge probably thought the mom was nuts and had influenced the daughter sufficiently to be unable to make informed decisions concerning treatment. If the daughter told the judge she would do fine without treatment I can understand why that could be considered evidence that she was irrational. If the daughter said "I know I will suffer and die without treatment but I still do not want treatment that gives me a good chance of cure" then it would have been a more difficult decision.
She is being forced to get chemotherapy against her will.And...................
How did it come out ????
See, courts are set up to cover their fellow government employees..
I hope for the best for that poor girl....
Gary F
Final Approach
What is your evidence of bias? She has a lethal disease with an 85% cure rate with treatment. The mom is clearly out of touch with reality.See, courts are set up to cover their fellow government employees..
I hope for the best for that poor girl....
And a 15% fatal rate even with all the treatments...
It is the mothers and daughters decision.. PERIOD......
Jump to 0:55...
You know what? Even stupidity can sometimes be terminal. Humanity at all levels will get along, irregardless of what the woman or her daughter choose.
To me the instance proves once again that a liberal government doesn't care what you do, as long as its mandatory. I for one would prefer not to have such an overbearing government that can force invasive medical treatment against the will of the patient, or if a minor, his/her parent. A decision to refuse treatment (i.e., 'they just don't see things our way') is NOT prima facie evidence of mental incompetence; to think otherwise is arrogant hubris.
You know what? Even stupidity can sometimes be terminal. Humanity at all levels will get along, irregardless of what the woman or her daughter choose.
To me the instance proves once again that a liberal government doesn't care what you do, as long as its mandatory. I for one would prefer not to have such an overbearing government that can force invasive medical treatment against the will of the patient, or if a minor, his/her parent. A decision to refuse treatment (i.e., 'they just don't see things our way') is NOT prima facie evidence of mental incompetence; to think otherwise is arrogant hubris.
Spot on!
Gary F
Final Approach
And a 15% fatal rate even with all the treatments...
It is the mothers and daughters decision.. PERIOD......
Tell it to the judge.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I did a little research to day just on a google search using Porpofol and aging you will get 10 or more pages of hit warning of the higher rates of ill effects of using Porpofol on the elderly.
I am becoming convinced the the medical professionals take this drug for granted and do not do the necessary screening to prevent the patiences with An Atrib condition from receiving it.
I am becoming convinced the the medical professionals take this drug for granted and do not do the necessary screening to prevent the patiences with An Atrib condition from receiving it.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
Fun thread. Been in medicine for 40+ years. Still practicing. Have to, because I've forgotten everything I learned (shrug). Oh well, I'm good at winging it.
OK, that was fun, now to the point. I do appreciate pharmacists. They are smart (mostly) and want to help (mostly). But there is a point where we part ways and that is where I say, OK, you think this is the right drug so you go inject this drug into the patient.
If they are as smart as they think they are they will run screaming for the exit because when they touch that patient they have put everything they have (including their license) and everything they will ever have up for grabs by a 1-800-call-scumbag.
Huge difference between knowing didactic pharmaceuticals and making a live or maybe die decision.
As far as the poster saying he'll never go to a doctor - good luck with that, man. And when the time comes you are clutching your chest and in pain be sure to inform the EMR doc of your opinion of him.
Cheers
OK, that was fun, now to the point. I do appreciate pharmacists. They are smart (mostly) and want to help (mostly). But there is a point where we part ways and that is where I say, OK, you think this is the right drug so you go inject this drug into the patient.
If they are as smart as they think they are they will run screaming for the exit because when they touch that patient they have put everything they have (including their license) and everything they will ever have up for grabs by a 1-800-call-scumbag.
Huge difference between knowing didactic pharmaceuticals and making a live or maybe die decision.
As far as the poster saying he'll never go to a doctor - good luck with that, man. And when the time comes you are clutching your chest and in pain be sure to inform the EMR doc of your opinion of him.
Cheers
rchamble
Pre-Flight
Propofol in the hands of a trained provider is a great drug, arguable the best drug on the market for what its used for. Of the induction agents on the market, by far Propofol is the most widely used anesthetic agent, and this is for a reason.. Anybody that has been put to sleep on this board I would bet you 100 to 1 Propofol was used… I would be willing to bet anybody that has had an upper or lower GI would have gotten Propofol for there conscious sedation during that procedure. In the world of anesthesia, this is the go to drug!! Again, in the hands of a trained provider it is a very safe medication
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Connecticut will soon be saying they can. They are currently in battle with a 17 year old woman over her refusal to take chemotherapy. The state says they have the right to force her to accept the therapy.
Let her sue for emancipation. Then make her decisions
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
I made the same mistake. The OP was talking no more "medical ever" as in never being able to get a 3rd class medical.
Gary F
Final Approach
You think her attorney would have done that by now. Another possibility is that the daughter really wants to be treated but does not want her mom to know.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Are they scientologists? Or whatever alternative religion that is that forgoes medical care. If not they should convert and make it a freedom of religion case.
Gary F
Final Approach
What is "An Atrib"? I suspect this should be afib which is short for atrial fibrillation. Propofol is commonly used in procedures where we shock people who have afib in an attempt to get them back in the normal rhythm so it's definitely not contraindicated for patients with this arrhythmia I don't think the propofol caused atrial fibrillation. Frequently during heart bypass operations and less commonly during non cardiac surgery the patients can develop atrial fibrillation as a result of stress or direct irritation of the heart. Those people who are badmouthing this drug don't impress me as being knowledgeable on the subject of drugs used for sedation.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've experienced this drug a few times, and what I remember is feeling good.... other than that I got nothing.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
We have done a disservice through the years to discuss any drug as a single-action chemical.
For example "Propofol is a general anesthetic", "Aspirin is an analgesic", "Benadryl is an antihistamine".
The truth is that every drug out there has a huge assortment of actions on the body. Some are not so nice. Many actions only occur on a small % of recipients. Some are dose-dependent.
We typically describe a drug based upon its most common action, or its desirable action.
This makes people (from Drs to patients) forget that any one drug usually has multiple effects on the body.
For example, aspirin's main desired effect is pain relief (analgesia). However, in most people it is also going to reduce platelet stickiness. This can be good. In many people it can cause a gastric ulcer (bad). In some people it occasionally causes tinitis (ringing of the ears; not desired but not horrible). Anti-inflammatory effects - usually good. Antipyretic actions, also usually good. Systemic type I anaphlactic reaction - can happen, although probably less than 0.0001% of users and very, very bad if it's you or someone you care for.
The point is, Aspirin (and I posit, almost any drug) will result in X effect on AA% of people, effect Y on BB% of people, effect Z on CC% of people etc etc. However, we only think of aspirin having effect X (analgesia) on 99.9% of people, totally ignorant of the other things listed. Sometimes the 'other things' are serious, debilitating or even lethal!
Propofol. A general anesthetic, right? Whoa. What about its respiratory depressant effects on AA% of recipients? What about its hypotensive effects? Occasional persistent erection effects. Hallucinogenic effects. And, apparently...adverse cardiac effects (likely on a patient with a previously unrecognized problem in this case).
Yes, we trust our medical professionals to know about these effects, to warn us of their potential, to take steps to avoid adverse effects, to react appropriately when they happen. However, until we stop using drugs, adverse effects are going to happen.
A person might say, "I don't want adverse effects so I will avoid all drugs". Okaay, but if you look at populations ie large groups of people I daresay that lives have been greatly improved, extended, and saved through the use of drugs. And even on the individual level, you are much more likely to have your life improved rather than degraded, through the appropriate and judicious use of medications.
Just a different look at drugs, one I think helps us understand them more thoroughly.
We (both medical professionals and the general public) do need to become more educated about drugs and use them more carefully, no doubt in my mind about that.
For example "Propofol is a general anesthetic", "Aspirin is an analgesic", "Benadryl is an antihistamine".
The truth is that every drug out there has a huge assortment of actions on the body. Some are not so nice. Many actions only occur on a small % of recipients. Some are dose-dependent.
We typically describe a drug based upon its most common action, or its desirable action.
This makes people (from Drs to patients) forget that any one drug usually has multiple effects on the body.
For example, aspirin's main desired effect is pain relief (analgesia). However, in most people it is also going to reduce platelet stickiness. This can be good. In many people it can cause a gastric ulcer (bad). In some people it occasionally causes tinitis (ringing of the ears; not desired but not horrible). Anti-inflammatory effects - usually good. Antipyretic actions, also usually good. Systemic type I anaphlactic reaction - can happen, although probably less than 0.0001% of users and very, very bad if it's you or someone you care for.
The point is, Aspirin (and I posit, almost any drug) will result in X effect on AA% of people, effect Y on BB% of people, effect Z on CC% of people etc etc. However, we only think of aspirin having effect X (analgesia) on 99.9% of people, totally ignorant of the other things listed. Sometimes the 'other things' are serious, debilitating or even lethal!
Propofol. A general anesthetic, right? Whoa. What about its respiratory depressant effects on AA% of recipients? What about its hypotensive effects? Occasional persistent erection effects. Hallucinogenic effects. And, apparently...adverse cardiac effects (likely on a patient with a previously unrecognized problem in this case).
Yes, we trust our medical professionals to know about these effects, to warn us of their potential, to take steps to avoid adverse effects, to react appropriately when they happen. However, until we stop using drugs, adverse effects are going to happen.
A person might say, "I don't want adverse effects so I will avoid all drugs". Okaay, but if you look at populations ie large groups of people I daresay that lives have been greatly improved, extended, and saved through the use of drugs. And even on the individual level, you are much more likely to have your life improved rather than degraded, through the appropriate and judicious use of medications.
Just a different look at drugs, one I think helps us understand them more thoroughly.
We (both medical professionals and the general public) do need to become more educated about drugs and use them more carefully, no doubt in my mind about that.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Tom was already told by Bruce Chien over on the Red Board that issuance is still possible based on a couple of tests (for which Medicare will pay), and if that's all good, future issuances are normal, so that's not an issue.
Last edited:
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
AS I've said there too, that simply isn't going to happen, he'll just go RVing like me.
In low doses, as used for moderate sedation (as opposed to general anesthesia), it can cause vivid dreams, at times with a sexual content. Most facilities that use moderate sedation are careful to have two staff members with a sedated or recovering patient at all times.
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
When I had my disc replacement surgery I was surprised that I had 2 Anesthesiologists in the room monitoring me. I will say I mentioned to my surgeon I was worried about surgery and at first said I would live with blown out discs. He called me and said I really needed the procedure. After telling him my first wife died due to what I believe was medical malpractice I was very worried (I say believe because it was settled less then an hour of picking a jury). I had the surgery, all better now but I am very careful about researching Drs I visit. The drug in question may have issues but I am glad I had it during back surgery.
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,728
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
Christian Scientists are the most widely know forgo medical treatment religion.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
That's it. Knew one in college and he was forced to buy health insurance(pre ocare law in MA requiring college students to have insurance) despite it being against his religious beliefs to see a doctor.
magyarflyer
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2014
- Messages
- 60
- Display Name
Display name:
magyarflyer
Yeah, come over when your incarcerated hernia becomes so painful that you can't stand the suffering. Of course you first refuse to have surgery, eventually when you agree I will be glad to do it under local anesthesia, no propophol, no noxious drugs just xylocaine
You will remember remember remember (no question on about you losing your memory)
And remember, I did not call you, you called me!
Cheers and good luck
You will remember remember remember (no question on about you losing your memory)
And remember, I did not call you, you called me!
Cheers and good luck
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Some of the replying Docs in this thread are mighty defensive.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I heard that somehow Omaha was successfully sued when a child was injured by sledding into a tree.
Canada is considering banning sledding and tobogganing on public property in Alberta.
It's fun to watch the system eat itself alive, isn't it?
Gary F
Final Approach
What do you mean by that? Those of us who have used propofol think of it as a useful tool with specific benefits and risks. We are just trying to provide a counterpoint to those who claim that propofol is a bad drug. You should appreciate that we are willing to take the time to share our knowledge and experience.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
My daughter just had propofol yesterday for a minor procedure. She walked out of the hospital about an hour after waking up, great stuff.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Most of us appreciate the info and advice the docs of this and other boards give.
It's always tough getting bad news, but we have to remember not to shoot the messenger when bad news comes and be thankful when bad things like hidden disease are found before they incapacitate or kill us.
Last edited:
Gary F
Final Approach
Not sure what you mean by that. There are a lot of useful but potentially deadly things out there that we don't want to ban. Think airplane for starters.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Dam Gary, think positive man, I'll edit it to make it clearer.