tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post32654602436813034..comments2024-03-12T07:48:29.712+03:00Comments on Stories from the trauma bay: The TrollDocBastardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12224592098492491365noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-20184332195302371112015-07-23T05:14:27.815+03:002015-07-23T05:14:27.815+03:00Point well taken. :)
There are actually some int...Point well taken. :) <br /><br />There are actually some interesting legal developments in the case, with Brusavitch's filing of his opposition to both demurrers, and the upcoming case management conference on July 30. Much more interesting than troll turds! <br /><br />Hope Doc B will reopen the "Jahi Mc Math Lawsuit" thread for comments, or start a new one. See Thaddeus Pope's site for more info. Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-14855348836183779742015-07-20T20:06:36.665+03:002015-07-20T20:06:36.665+03:00I suggest ignoring the troll. Refutations don'...I suggest ignoring the troll. Refutations don't bother him one whit and he WANTS attention on this blog even if he can't post here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-73944210048674371562015-07-20T18:06:18.527+03:002015-07-20T18:06:18.527+03:00What's really funny is that it WAS disclosed o...What's really funny is that it WAS disclosed on Fisher's CV which is in court documents. The troll even quoted it himself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14413700704411980332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-40126686399691899672015-07-20T05:32:49.951+03:002015-07-20T05:32:49.951+03:00Today's troll turd on the "Keep"page...Today's troll turd on the "Keep"page just regurgitates his conflict of interest allegation against Dr. Fisher.<br /><br />"Nobody caught this one but fisher lied when he said he was NOT affiliated with UCSF Benioff Childrens Hospital of Oakland. Fisher received his medical education at UCSF School of Medicine in 1989. This is important. One of the prelude in becoming a court appointed indepependent medical examiner includes disclosures of any conflict of interests. Fisher did NOT disclose the fact that he attended UCSF School of Medicine in 1989. Fisher should be disqualified. You can file a motion to squash and bring this to the court's attention. Without Fisher, the court would have to find another independent doctor to examine Jahi."<br /><br />Well...no....Dr. Fisher didn't "lie." He graduated from medical school at UCSF in 1989. That was 24 years ago! So what? There's no record of his actually *practicing* at the hospital at which Jahi's surgery was performed, nor even at the one with which it later merged. <br /><br />UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital of Oakland didn't adopt that name until January 2014, when the merger took place between UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital and Research Center Oakland on January 1. <br /><br />Jahi's surgery took place on December 9, 2013, and the diagnosis of brain death was done on December 12, 2013. What happened afterward was determined by the court. Dr. Fisher was appointed by the court, he did his work, and Judge Grillo entered his ruling - that Jahi was legally dead - on December 24, 2013. <br /><br />And, again, Troll is still pushing to have "another independent doctor examine Jahi." <br />SMH...Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-66743828152156658832015-07-20T04:23:52.009+03:002015-07-20T04:23:52.009+03:00I read that too. Looks like it's a case manage...I read that too. Looks like it's a case management statement, rather than an actual response to the points raised in the demurrers. I posted the link on the "Jahi McMath lawsuit" thread but hasn't gotten through moderation yet...probably a busy weekend for Doc B!<br /><br />http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/31875779_1_1_.pdf Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-67801288180777123632015-07-18T10:35:34.384+03:002015-07-18T10:35:34.384+03:00the response to the demurrer is on Pope's page...the response to the demurrer is on Pope's page - and it appears Brusavich is planning to argue against brain death. of course, I expect the judge will say "okay, bring in an unbiased doctor to administer the test" and that will be that.Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15166383392696452631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-81855689571736810762015-07-18T07:27:34.968+03:002015-07-18T07:27:34.968+03:00Just for laughs...
http://medicalfutility.blogspo...Just for laughs...<br /><br />http://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2015/07/dr-byrne-examining-jahi-mcmath-eol-in.htmlScarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-46988403027918909492015-07-18T07:10:50.932+03:002015-07-18T07:10:50.932+03:00UPDATE! A few minutes ago, I wrote about Troll...UPDATE! A few minutes ago, I wrote about Troll's latest post to the "Keep" FB page. (Can't see my post yet as it awaits Doc B's review, so I can't edit). <br /><br />The Troll post I referenced has, just recently, been DELETED from the FB page, though the previous ones are still there. I guess they ARE getting tired of him.... <br />Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-3603204350163467252015-07-18T06:52:09.376+03:002015-07-18T06:52:09.376+03:00Ken, I've thought about that too. There really...Ken, I've thought about that too. There really aren't even any "updates" on the "Keep" FB site any more. Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-76338875384039555552015-07-18T06:41:31.872+03:002015-07-18T06:41:31.872+03:00Today's contribution to the "Keep" p...Today's contribution to the "Keep" page is yet another cut-and-past, taken-out-of-context job. Dr./Counselor Troll cites an entry from what looks like a legislative journal, from 1986, referencing a bill that was introduced to allow the religious/moral exemption to accepting DDNC as a determination of death.<br /><br />As anyone knows who's had contact with the process of legislation knows, not every bill that's introduced ends up becoming law. Some stuff just doesn't pass the first time around. Some will pass in one legislative body and not the other. Some passes both, but gets substantially amended in the process. And, some gets wiped out later on down the road, when a subsequent bill amends or entirely rescinds the earlier one. <br /><br />It appears that today's featured item was cut and pasted from the article titled:<br /><br />Primary California Legal Authorities on <br />Accommodating Objections to the Determination <br />of Death by Neurological Criteria<br />Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD<br />January 2015<br /><br />Link here...great reading if the subject interests you. <br /><br />http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/Pope_SCBC_handout_laws_.pdf<br /><br />As always, Dr. Pope has done extensive research on his subject, and illustrates how policy and case law have evolved *over the years.* <br /><br />Problem is...the "information" posted on the "Keep" FB page is just:<br /><br />"You can fight them all the way. Cal. A.B. 3311 (1986) (Katz)" <br /><br />(followed by the section of that bill that includes the statement "providing that an individual, as specified, is not dead if the determination of death would violate the religious or moral beliefs or convictions of the individual." <br /><br />Of course, the *rest* of the information in Dr. Pope's paper includes lots of examples of how the state policies, and various hospital policies over the years, have since defined reasonable accommodation to these objections, and have allowed families anywhere from a few days to a few weeks or more, in some cases, to accept the situation. He also clearly states the fact that this reasonable accommodation is ONLY vent support until the heart stops beating as nature takes its course...hospitals are NOT required to perform any other procedures, or administer any other medications, since the patient is already dead. <br /><br />But of course Troll chooses to present this single, 29-year-old item of "information" as though it were current law, and Jahi's family could go into court with a petition based on this alone, to declare her alive just because *they* choose to believe she is! <br /><br />Again, his memory is failing. <br /><br />Jahi's family already HAS legal representation. If Dolan would have been able to succeed in establishing Jahi's status as a living person just because Mama said so, due to her great faith, Oakland Children's Hospital would never have refused to perform the requested life support procedures, and would not have given the family a time limit for terminating the vent support. And...if Jahi could have retained her "legally alive" status in California, there would have been no need to ship her body all the way across the country to New Jersey, just to find a doctor and hospital to continue ICU-level care. <br /><br />Life could have been SO much easier for Nailah and her family if only she'd retained Counselor Troll as her attorney! :) Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-50012997680167897472015-07-18T02:26:22.802+03:002015-07-18T02:26:22.802+03:00The Troll is actually calling for another bedside ...The Troll is actually calling for another bedside exam? Does he realize that in spite of all his "informations, memos" plastered all over the internet the bedside exam will not be including a test to see if one or two brain cells are still metabolizing glucose? He's gone off the deep end because he's been shut off from commenting anywhere but the Keeper page and if he continues to call for another bedside exam they'll be shutting him down too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-46052890453181235612015-07-17T18:00:21.552+03:002015-07-17T18:00:21.552+03:00and we have no proof it is not LITERALLY a preserv...and we have no proof it is not LITERALLY a preserved corpse - as in the heart stopped some time back and it has been in a deep freeze while the grift goes on.Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15166383392696452631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-50536099409506175392015-07-17T08:08:43.966+03:002015-07-17T08:08:43.966+03:00Strange that despite his apparent obsession with t...Strange that despite his apparent obsession with the Jahi McMath case, Dr./Counselor Troll either hasn't followed the story too well, or hasn't comprehended the information, related to the actual events. <br /><br />Today's post to the "Keep" FB page focuses on his disagreement with Dr. Fisher's observations and conclusions. More of the usual crap about the brain not being "completely dead," so I won't bother reposting. But the last line summarizes:<br /><br />"Based on all the inconsistencies surrounding Fisher's brain death examination, his BD diagnosis should be invalidated and the BD exam repeated. " <br /><br />Again, he just doesn't *get* the fact that no one, including the court AND the attorneys who actually represent Jahi's family, sees any reason to revisit the "determination of brain death" issue again. <br /><br />If Dolan had better evidence to present after the initial submissions last October didn't win the argument, he would have done so. And, if he'd seen any valid reason to refute Dr. Fisher's findings, he would have done that too. But ...he actually stated that he believed Dr. Fisher's original findings were appropriate at the time, considering Jahi's condition in January 2014. The presentation of the "new evidence" was intended to prove that the condition of Jahi's brain, and whole body, had actually improved somewhat *since* that time, due to a reduction in the brain's swelling since its initial injury, and to the administration of appropriate nutrition, hydration, and medication required to facilitate healing. But that didn't work. The fact that the brain and body had been preserved, to a degree, from additional deterioration didn't prove that actual *healing* had taken place. <br /><br />And, let's be real here. What does he think would happen if a genuine, qualified medical doctor actually *did* repeat the brain death examination, or actually did *any* type of physical exam, *now*? We have no real idea how deteriorated the remains of this poor child must be, nine months *after* the "evidence" presentation in October. But we can reasonably speculate, based on the fact that the family hasn't seen fit to post any new pictures for, what, maybe a year now? And even Paul Byrne's account of his "visit to Jahi at her home in New Jersey" contained just one picture of what he stated was his hand holding her hand. Yeah, he's been more than a bit goofy in recent years, in terms of his anti-brain-death crusade. Still, as someone who was once a practicing medical doctor, he has enough sense to know that putting pictures of a corpse with an article that describes a miraculous story of healing and recovery just won't fly. <br /><br />It makes no sense to believe that any medical tests done on what's essentially a preserved corpse, more than a year and a half after death, could yield "better" results. Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-89575736780846665872015-07-17T07:19:36.025+03:002015-07-17T07:19:36.025+03:00Seems that would be the only legal option allowed ...Seems that would be the only legal option allowed in a California court, since Jahi has been considered legally dead in that state for more than a year and a half now. <br /><br />But there may be another complication in pursuing this option, even if Brusavich *could* get Nailah to understand that going for the "chump change" wrongful death settlement was her only chance at getting *any* $. We have to wonder what impact that would have on whatever may be happening in NJ. <br /><br />Remember that the NJ law doesn't state that the medical determination of brain death *isn't* a valid determination of death. It just allows a patient's family to reject acceptance of that determination, if it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. <br /><br />Jahi's remains were sent to NJ because her mother chose to exercise that option, and because, through the IBRF, she was able to find a doctor with hospital admitting privileges who agreed with her. Basically, Nailah was seeking refuge, by claiming that although her child had been determined legally dead in CA, she wasn't able to accept that as final, due to her personal religious beliefs, so she needed to find a place where Jahi could get continued medical support, towards the goal of possible recovery. So, the medical, governmental, and law enforcement authorities are surely well aware of the fact that Jahi McMath is considered legally dead in CA, but is technically still entitled to medical support, if her family chooses that course of action, in NJ. <br /><br />But...what would happen if Nailah were to actually file a clearly-articulated "wrongful death" medical malpractice suit in California, and win a settlement? Wouldn't it then be a matter of public record that she was not only actually affirming Jahi's death, but collecting monetary compensation for it? What happens to the "religious convictions" that constitute the basis of Jahi's legal status as a living person in NJ? Would that state still be obligated to provide continued medical support (and possibly other benefits)? <br /><br />I honestly don't know how this would play out legally. But IMHO, if one's "religious belief" causes a parent to believe a brain-dead child is still alive, and demand that she be treated as a living person, just because the heartbeat can be sustained mechanically, how can that same "religious belief" allow that parent to not only acknowledge the child's death, but claim compensation for it, in another jurisdiction?<br /><br />Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-19121929352457985902015-07-17T02:57:48.180+03:002015-07-17T02:57:48.180+03:00there are those who suspect the "lack of work...there are those who suspect the "lack of working brain" may be close to the truth. he is showing signs of an irrational fixation, delusional behavior, and antisocial acting out.Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15166383392696452631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-32774908543365371432015-07-16T15:28:29.229+03:002015-07-16T15:28:29.229+03:00Professor Pope had this to say about the matter:
...Professor Pope had this to say about the matter:<br /><br />"I recently blogged about the defendants' demurrers. Since the family's lawsuit seeks future medical expenses, they are alleging that Jahi is still alive. The defendants' demurrers deny this and argue against re-litigating the determination of death.<br /><br /> The hearing on the demurrers is set for July 30. Consequently, the McMath family's opposition is due by Friday, July 17 (9 court days before the hearing). That opposition brief should reveal both (a) whether they intend to re-litigate the determination of death, and (b) why they think that is warranted."<br /><br />Last fall Dolen didn't dispute the original diagnosis from December 2013. He was trying to say that new evidence suggested that Jahi's brain healed and no longer met the criteria. Since he dropped the attempt after Dr. Fisher's declaration the matter of trying to rescind the death certificate never happened.<br /><br />Dr. Rosen and CHO are citing the original court filings from January 2014 as evidence that the matter was already settled in court and a certified death certificate issued. <br /><br />The Troll is all over the internet trying to prove that the entire concept of whole brain death is flawed thus rendering the Uniform Determination of Death by Neurological Criteria invalid. That's neither Brusavich's nor Dolen's contention for the purposes of this suit. They're not that inept. Like Rosen and CHO stated through their attorneys in their demurrers, this is not the venue to change a law.<br /><br />It will be very interesting to see the court's response. I think they have no choice but to strike the part of the suit asking for personal injuries and future medical expenses. Brusavich will have to go forward with wrongful death and emotional damages if he can get Nailah to accept that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-73179282007145471982015-07-16T14:10:29.193+03:002015-07-16T14:10:29.193+03:00I use "not her real name" for clarity. I...I use "not her real name" for clarity. I started using the copyright symbol as a joke, and it became a running joke. However, the correct symbol to use (as I learned very recently) is the trademark symbol, so I'll switch to using that. I could legally trademark the phrase if I really wanted to (assuming no one else has), not that I'm actually planning on doing so. DocBastardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224592098492491365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-31661523782899902622015-07-16T10:04:00.256+03:002015-07-16T10:04:00.256+03:00Just a legal question...does one really *need* to ...Just a legal question...does one really *need* to use a "tag" after the phrase (not his/her real name)? <br /><br />I see people write this all the time on blog and message board postings, not just by those legally and ethically bound to protect patient/client confidentiality (doctors, attorneys, social workers) but by anyone else wanting to share an experience while not violating the confidentiality of the person they reference (friend, acquaintance, co-worker, whatever). I've never seen anyone using the trademark symbol with it. SHOULD they be using it? Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-26426686019646759942015-07-16T09:55:09.838+03:002015-07-16T09:55:09.838+03:00To Anonymous15 July 2015 at 15:34, who wrote:
&qu...To Anonymous15 July 2015 at 15:34, who wrote:<br /><br />"Not to mention that without the advent of mechanical ventilation there would be no death by neurological criteria because death by cardiorespiratory means would soon follow an hypoxic injury. "<br /><br />Exactly! That's one of the points made by Dr. Calixto and his team in the article I mentioned yesterday. The concept of "death by neurological criteria" evolved because of advances in medical intensive care, which gave us the technology to keep various body processes going, even when the parts of the body that would normally control these functions had failed. For thousands of years, humankind had pretty much universally accepted the fact that a person was dead once the heart had stopped beating, so blood circulation and breathing stopped too. But the line between "dead" and "alive" started getting blurred, once we had machines that could keep the lungs breathing and the heart beating, and medications that could keep other body processes regulated to some extent, even when the brain that usually controlled these processes had been irrecoverably damaged. Both medical professionals *and* their patients (and patient families) were then faced with the challenge of figuring out when technology should be used for "life support" towards the goal of achieving some degree of healing and recovery, and when it would be "futile care," if there was no realistic possibility of improvement over time. <br /><br />You also wrote: <br /><br />"Why are resuscitative efforts continued long after the brain passes any viability threshold? In Jahi's case they continued for 2 1/2 hours! "<br /><br />Other readers have already shared some useful insights. IMHO, the reason this happened in Jahi's case was most likely due to the situational dynamics, rather than any particular policy being followed:<br /><br />1. The family was present, and of course visibly distressed, and not ready to "give up" on Jahi's being stabilized. Parents who take their child to the hospital for a planned corrective surgery aren't even really thinking about the *possibility* of death, much less putting a DNR order in place. <br /><br />2. Since Jahi hadn't been presenting any obvious symptoms of distress immediately after the surgery (she'd recovered consciousness, and it's reasonable to assume that all of her vitals were monitored throughout this process and found to be OK) this was an unexpected "turn for the worse" in a patient who had been previously stable. Medical staff may have reasonably hoped that if they continued the resuscitative efforts, there was a chance of success. <br /><br />3. As Ken has stated, it's pretty normal for responders to make extra efforts with a child, just because the loss of a young life is harder to accept. Besides that, kids, at least those who've had reasonably average health before their traumatic injury or illness, often rebound from setbacks that an adult wouldn't survive. <br /><br />If Jahi had been a frail elderly person already suffering from serious illness, my guess is that the response would have been much different. Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-68952581394789121272015-07-16T08:31:35.857+03:002015-07-16T08:31:35.857+03:00Ken - I think what we're seeing here is an exa...Ken - I think what we're seeing here is an example of someone who, sadly, has apparently failed the "people with working brains" test. <br /><br />Today's post to the "Keep" FB page is another journal article by a pair of doctors who believe that "whole brain death" can't be conclusively determined by what they categorize as the typical "bedside tests" currently in use for this purpose. OK...no problem with recognizing the fact that different people have different opinions. BUT...the first line of his post is:<br /><br />"Jahi's brain death diagnosis can be challenged in court. "<br /><br />Duh. Can he REALLY not remember that it already HAS been challenged in court, and the challenge failed because the evidence submitted to the court was found to be insufficient to justify reconsideration of the diagnosis? <br /><br />Even those of us who *don't* claim to be attorneys know that you can't bring a case back into court *just* because it didn't get the desired result the first time. There would be no purpose served by Dolan, Counselor Troll, or anyone else attempting to refile a case that would once again challenge the brain death determination *unless* some medically-significant new evidence could be presented. Not gonna happen. Scarabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999961861218673544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-34770000858592036992015-07-16T04:40:55.367+03:002015-07-16T04:40:55.367+03:00Unlike The Troll, I do not claim to be a lawyer, b...Unlike The Troll, I do not claim to be a lawyer, but a 0.562 second Google search tells me that you're absolutely right - I should be using ™ rather than ©. I'll start doing that henceforth. Thank you kindly.DocBastardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224592098492491365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-78818001534761691982015-07-16T04:29:00.887+03:002015-07-16T04:29:00.887+03:00DNR statutes vary widely. In WI, for instance, onc...DNR statutes vary widely. In WI, for instance, once a DNR is issued, the person gets a bangle noting that DNR. It's distinctive, it's on your wrist (though you can take it off at any time), and it tells the ER and even the EMTs responding to an accident that you are DNR.<br /><br />If there's no DNR, they will attempt CPR no matter how frail you appear. I don't know what's worse for relatives - hearing the ribs of their loved one break during CPR or a bunch of medical people standing around, watching monitors until they can process the body. At least with a DNR, the family can reassure themselves that they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their loved one. Maybe a smidge of the sting of having a loved one die diminishes when you're acting in accordance with that person's wishes.<br /><br />DNRs do not have to be applied to living wills (some states, like MA, do not accept/recognize living wills) or POAs. They are generally separate documents, though referencing them in a POA and making sure your attorney in fact is on board and capable of adhering to your wishes is even more essential than having a POA or DNR.<br /><br />Btw, Doc Bastard - you use the phrase, "not his real name (c)" all the time. If you look into it, I think you might want to use "not his real name (tm)" instead. In the US anyway, your blog is already protected by copyright whether or not you're making a Library of Congress filing (you need that LOC filing should you want to initiate a suit against somebody, but your date for copyright purposes is the date of publication, i.e. the day you share your writing with somebody else). Trademarks, however, need to be marked accordingly in every use, and your use of "not his/her real name (c)" reads to me more like an issue of trademark.bellkurvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081555358143609867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-43837459328974588252015-07-15T20:31:19.147+03:002015-07-15T20:31:19.147+03:00Some people are too frail from disease or old age ...Some people are too frail from disease or old age to withstand the CPR attempts. Would you still do it if they didn't have a DNR?<br /><br /> I'm thinking of my sister who passed away one night in a nursing home. She had metastatic cancer and weighed barely 65 pounds. Her heart stopped sometime in the night after all visitors had gone home. She requested full treatment and heroic efforts at every family care conference even though she was terminal, otherwise she would've been in hospice. I have a feeling CPR was not attempted by the nursing home staff but we, as a family, had no problem with that. <br /><br />Is it true that if you opt for hospice care in the event of terminal illness it is with the understanding that any care is palliative and CPR is not an option?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-81924717666365584462015-07-15T19:27:14.737+03:002015-07-15T19:27:14.737+03:00He keeps making that same erroneous argument about...He keeps making that same erroneous argument about the carotid. Surgeons may report anomalous anatomy in our operative reports, but we aren't obligated to do so. Nor are we required to inform anyone else about anomalous anatomy. If we are concerned there may be an issue because of the anomaly, telling the recovery room nurses about the concern is definitely appropriate. <br /><br />Here is the point that I hope The Troll tries to grasp: If I am ever concerned about bleeding before I leave the operating theatre, then I shouldn't be leaving the operating theatre without addressing the area concern first.DocBastardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224592098492491365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1809371631407381115.post-21546507847664562962015-07-15T19:22:19.860+03:002015-07-15T19:22:19.860+03:00He tried posting that comment here, where it was s...He tried posting that comment here, where it was summarily nuked.<br /><br />S/he continues to prove that s/he knows nothing about trauma surgery despite his/her claims to be a former surgeon. I'm trained and authorised to operate on any part of the body from stem to stern. That said, I have never performed a brain surgery on my own (yet). And though I rarely do emergency thoracic surgery without a thoracic surgeon present, I have done so many times and will continue to do so whether The Troll believes me or not.DocBastardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12224592098492491365noreply@blogger.com