Little girl gets new heart and lung

CHEMICAL SOLDIER · 02-20-2003, 10:34 AM

DURHAM, N.C. (Feb. 20) - Jesica Santillan's newest heart was beating on its own Thursday after her second heart-lung transplant operation, according to spokespeople for the family of the girl who was the victim of a botched first surgery.

Jesica Santillan was mistakenly given a heart and lungs incompatible with her type O-positive blood during a transplant Feb. 7 at Duke University Hospital. Her condition steadily deteriorated as her body rejected the new organs.

A second set of organs was located early Thursday and a transplant operation began before dawn. Hospital spokesman Richard Puff said Jesica was out of surgery at 10:15 a.m. and in critical condition, which is standard in such cases.

''Her heart is beating on its own,'' family lawyer Kurt Dixon said. ''Jesica is still in critical condition, but the operation has gone as expected.''

The procedure has a 50-50 success rate, said Mack Mahoney, a leader in fund-raising efforts to pay for the girl's medical care. Puff called the operation successful and said it had gone as expected. He gave no further details.

''So far, so good,'' said Renee McCormick, a spokeswoman for the charity that is raising money for Jesica's care. ''Her parents feel some relief right now. Everyone is incredibly hopeful and we're just so pleased, so thankful.''

Family supporters said they had no information about the donor of the second set of organs.

''Hopefully, the donor family will come forward and we can get these families reunited at some point in time,'' McCormick said.

Jesica, who is from a small town near Guadalajara, Mexico, needed the transplant because a heart deformity kept her lungs from getting oxygen into her blood. Doctors said she would have died within six months without a transplant.

As her condition deteriorated after the botched surgery, she was put on a machine to keep her heart and lungs going. But that has caused kidney damage and she may also suffer some brain damage or paralysis, Mahoney said.

''We'll have to deal with those if they occur,'' he said.

Dr. James Jaggers, lead surgeon on the first transplant, was performing the second operation Thursday, and Mahoney said he doesn't blame the doctor for the failure of the first.

''We have faith in the surgeon,'' he said. ''We feel there was a grave mistake made. We do not question his skill as a surgeon.''

McCormick said she was sure the transplant team would not repeat the earlier error.

''I am positive at this point that they have typed these organs,'' she said.

Jaggers said Wednesday he believed appropriate checks were made before the first set of organs were offered to the girl.

A spokeswoman for the United Network for Organ Sharing, which matches organs and recipients, said her organization has asked Duke, along with the two organ procurement agencies that helped arrange the donation, to draft written accounts of the events leading to Jesica's transplant surgery.

The Richmond, Va.-based UNOS will review Duke's written accounts, along with those from the organ procurement agencies, and make a private determination about the sequence of events. Spokeswoman Anne Paschke said recommendations are made for corrective action, not punishment.

Duke must also answer to the agency that accredits hospitals, which investigates unusual deaths that might signal a problem with the hospital's system.

Those probes are likely to take several weeks.

Im glad all is well as of now ,I h pray she pulls through .

AP-NY-02-20-03 1022EST

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Qwikshot · 02-20-2003, 12:20 PM

Biggest SNAFU ever

bbor · 02-20-2003, 12:27 PM

Thank god they were able to rectify this...what a horror story.

JeeberD · 02-20-2003, 12:55 PM

My A&P Prof was talking about this yesterday. We're going over the immune system right now, and this is a perfect example of the body attacking "foreign" tissue. She also said that the chances of them finding another, correct heart and set of lungs was practically nil. I'm glad they bucked the odds and I really hope the young lady pulls through this.

Craptacular · 02-20-2003, 03:42 PM

Although it obviously took someone else's tragedy to make it possible, I'm glad to see they were able to successfully transplant the correct organs.

TroyF · 02-20-2003, 05:51 PM

My prayers are with the girl. I hope she pulls through.

TroyF

mrushh · 02-20-2003, 07:15 PM

My prayers are with the girl and I hope she pulls through., too.

However, I think they would have killed someone themselves to find her replacement organs or they would be facing the BIGGEST LAWSUIT IN HISTORY. As is, they'll probably get crushed, anyway.

Qwikshot · 02-22-2003, 05:45 PM

They just pronounced her brain dead, what a terrible event...and yes, I expect a big lawsuit...

sterlingice · 02-22-2003, 06:13 PM

You have to forgive me if I just find this such a non-news story.

1) It's only "news" because it happened to a little girl
2) The lawsuit is going to succeed because she was a minor
3) And my health care bills are going up because of one botched surgery and thousands of dollars of lawyer fees and millions of dollars paid out to the family that they don't rightfully deserve.

Do they deserve more cash because it was a little girl? No, but they will get it because it will be a case decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty (ok, that was tongue in cheek, but still). Nothing like some family winning powerball at our expense because a doctor screwed up and a lawyer wanting to make a name for himself.

Certainly no ammount of money can make up for the loss of a daughter, or any family member, but because of the above reactions like this by otherwise intelligent people, this case has suddenly become a media circus which helps propogate the legal problems in our country rather than fix them. Anyone crying foul just because she was a little girl had better not get pissed off about their health care costs ever again. If this were a 40yo man there would be no uproar at all and that's what's disgusting.

SI

Airhog · 02-22-2003, 06:19 PM

Thats pretty low sterlingice. Those parents deserve the money. I mean how hard is it to double check and make sure that the organs are the right blood type as the girl? This was a very obvious mistake, one that could have been prevented quite easily.

tucker342 · 02-22-2003, 06:23 PM

I pretty much completely agree sterlingice.

Also, I don't get how they could make such a big mistake, wouldn't you quadruple check to make sure that they're compatible? Someone really fucked up.

The Afoci · 02-22-2003, 06:25 PM

One thing that pisses me off is the family is not donating her organs. out of all the people that do, you would think they would. That is very disrespectful, imho, to the people who donated organs trying to save their daughter.

sterlingice · 02-22-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Thats pretty low sterlingice. Those parents deserve the money. I mean how hard is it to double check and make sure that the organs are the right blood type as the girl? This was a very obvious mistake, one that could have been prevented quite easily.

But do they deserve any more than any other person just because she's a 17yo and that's what makes her a media darling? That's my whole problem with it: no one would care if this were, say, my dad or just some random person.

They certainly deserve money- this isn't mcdonalds coffee: someone died! But there's a lot of skewed perspectives just because she's young.

SI

The Afoci · 02-22-2003, 06:27 PM

Oh yeah, my source was linked to from the drudge report. I assume it was a newspaper online site.

Jets80 · 02-22-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bbor
Thank god they were able to rectify this...what a horror story.

Rectify??? She's brain dead.

rexalllsc · 02-22-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Afoci
One thing that pisses me off is the family is not donating her organs. out of all the people that do, you would think they would. That is very disrespectful, imho, to the people who donated organs trying to save their daughter.

Yeh, that's pretty weak.

rexalllsc · 02-22-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Airhog
Thats pretty low sterlingice. Those parents deserve the money. I mean how hard is it to double check and make sure that the organs are the right blood type as the girl? This was a very obvious mistake, one that could have been prevented quite easily.

Yes, that should've been done, but nothing in this world is perfect. That's what happens with progression. Mistakes are made. Maybe we should go live in caves so we don't make anymore mistakes, and people just die of 'unknown causes' at age 17...

At any rate, I agree with the poster re: health care, which has gone up about 150% in the last 5 years...

ACStrider · 02-22-2003, 06:40 PM

A bit cynical are we SI? I think you're right about what you're saying, but it does sound rather cold. Personally, I don't have a problem with big lawsuits. If the suing part makes a compelling case for a certain amount, it's agreed upon by a jury, and the judge verifies it, hey, it's the way our system is made. What drives me nuts to no end is frivilous lawsuits. Aw, I stubbed my toe on your sidewalk, I'm suing. I didn't get perfect service when I went to the hospital, I'm suing. I get stomach aches regularly because I eat five of your spicy chicken sandwiches every night in five minutes right before I go to bed everynight, I'm suing.

What our country need despately is TORT reform. We need to switch to a loser pays system. That way people with legitimate lawsuits can go to court and expect justice, but people who are looking for any reason available to get money for whatever problem they have will think twice before setting foot in court.

STK · 02-22-2003, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Afoci
One thing that pisses me off is the family is not donating her organs. out of all the people that do, you would think they would. That is very disrespectful, imho, to the people who donated organs trying to save their daughter.

everyone that enters the United States illegally should get stuffed with non-compatible organs.

you won't hear me sniffling.

rexalllsc · 02-22-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STK
everyone that enters the United States illegally should get stuffed with non-compatible organs.

you won't hear me sniffling.

Was the girl here illegally?

rexalllsc · 02-22-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ACStrider
A bit cynical are we SI? I think you're right about what you're saying, but it does sound rather cold. Personally, I don't have a problem with big lawsuits. If the suing part makes a compelling case for a certain amount, it's agreed upon by a jury, and the judge verifies it, hey, it's the way our system is made. What drives me nuts to no end is frivilous lawsuits. Aw, I stubbed my toe on your sidewalk, I'm suing. I didn't get perfect service when I went to the hospital, I'm suing. I get stomach aches regularly because I eat five of your spicy chicken sandwiches every night in five minutes right before I go to bed everynight, I'm suing.

What our country need despately is TORT reform. We need to switch to a loser pays system. That way people with legitimate lawsuits can go to court and expect justice, but people who are looking for any reason available to get money for whatever problem they have will think twice before setting foot in court.

I heard a doctor on the radio talking about how his Malpractice insurance had gone from 23,000 to over 85,000...in the last 2 years....and that only 17% of all malpractice cases (1 in 6) are favorable to the plaintiff.

STK · 02-22-2003, 07:00 PM

one of the first stories I read on this subject suggested the family paid a "human" smuggler(a "coyote") to enter the country to get her the help she obviously needed.

Airhog · 02-22-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
But do they deserve any more than any other person just because she's a 17yo and that's what makes her a media darling? That's my whole problem with it: no one would care if this were, say, my dad or just some random person.

They certainly deserve money- this isn't mcdonalds coffee: someone died! But there's a lot of skewed perspectives just because she's young.

SI

ah, I guess I misread your point. I do have to agree with you there. and you probably are right, but then again ratings and ad revenue is what drives the news

rexalllsc · 02-22-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STK
one of the first stories I read on this subject suggested the family paid a "human" smuggler(a "coyote") to enter the country to get her the help she obviously needed.

Ugh.

Ben E Lou · 02-22-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STK
one of the first stories I read on this subject suggested the family paid a "human" smuggler(a "coyote") to enter the country to get her the help she obviously needed.

Boy, this is a tough one. On the one hand, she was here illegally. On the other, I certainly can't blame the mother for wanting to get her daughter the medical help she needed.

Of course, the other angle on the "illegal alien" end of this story is that I've heard people who benefit every day from illegal alien labor who are now complaining about her receiving an organ in the first place....

Jets80 · 02-22-2003, 07:24 PM

I hope that she was here legaly and that she was "in line" for those organs just like everyone else waiting on a transplant. That's 2 hearts and 2 lungs ( 4 people ) that could have been saved.

sterlingice · 02-22-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

I heard a doctor on the radio talking about how his Malpractice insurance had gone from 23,000 to over 85,000...in the last 2 years....and that only 17% of all malpractice cases (1 in 6) are favorable to the plaintiff.

Plantiff or defendant? That's crazy if only 1 in 6 cases results in wins for the victims. That means the number of cases has skyrocketed or the settlements. You can't put a price on someone dying but I think the standard is around $1-2M because that essentially will set someone up for life in exchange for their loss.

Instead, we have stupid rulings like the 45yo secretary who sued the Marlins after getting hit by a fly ball. Her lawyer showed that the Marlins moved the screens down that catch foul balls because season ticket holders blocked their view so she won something like $40M including $5M in lost wages. Someone want to tell me how a 45yo secretary gets $5M in wages in 10 lifetimes short of being Slick Willy's secretary??

But this brings up something I argued to death with my ethics prof about. What all is "too litigious"? For instance, in the Challenger case, you know someone was going to get blamed even though you have LITERALLY MILLIONS OF MOVING PARTS WORKING TOGETHER. The one who was blamed was a supervisor who said his engineer didn't bring enough convincing evidence that the o-rings would fail in cold weather. There's somewhat more to it than that but we are now essentially in a society that must find a scapegoat.

I know this was a innocent mistake but if someone could kindly draw the line for me between negligence and accident, I'd like to see it. The human body is complex and no doctor knows everything published about it. Granted, even I know you don't put A blood in an O person but you can put O blood in an A person but, still, this is part of a greater argument.

SI

STK · 02-22-2003, 07:42 PM

if she did in fact enter the country illegally, and things were overlooked considering the sympathy factor, what legal rights would the family have?

ACStrider · 02-22-2003, 08:24 PM

I totally agree SI. The idea of a simple accident is lost on people today. If something goes wrong, it's obviously someone's fault. And if it isn't my fault then, by golly, I deserve compensation. Whatever happened to "it's a mistake but that's life"? Where is the forgiveness and understanding that if the situation was reversed the actions wouldn't have been any different?

bbor · 02-22-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jets80
Rectify??? She's brain dead.

I posted this after she received the wrong organs and they were able to find he another set of organs that where the right blood type.It was also posted BEFORE they found out that she was brain damaged.

JeeberD · 02-22-2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexalllsc
I heard a doctor on the radio talking about how his Malpractice insurance had gone from 23,000 to over 85,000...in the last 2 years....and that only 17% of all malpractice cases (1 in 6) are favorable to the plaintiff.

My father is a doctor (an OB-GYN) and he is being sued by a woman who says that he removed her uterus without her permission. Umm, yeah, sure he did. Apparently this woman has sued several other doctors before, and she has no case since her signature is all over the paperwork saying what was going to be done, but the fact is that this nonsense case is going to cost thousands of dollars and tie up our already full legal system. Our society is way too litigous. People just need to quit trying to treat the court system like the lottery...

mrskippy · 02-22-2003, 08:54 PM

Apparently the second set of organs were still usable, but the family didn't want to donate the organs. Just doesn't seem fair.

Obviously Duke admits its mikstake and they appear liable in any malpractice suit. The girl should have got the right organs from the start.

ACStrider · 02-22-2003, 09:03 PM

I was in Estonia this summer doing missions work. There was open construction in the streets, at a public water area, there were lifeguard but they weren't telling people what to do (not to run, when to jump, etc.), and at a building construction site there were wires laying around on the ground. I couldn't help but see all the potential lawsuits if this were America...I also couldn't help but wonder which country was better off in this regard.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER · 02-22-2003, 09:22 PM

It's just sad that the donated organs will not be donated again to be used by a needy recipient .

rexalllsc · 02-23-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
Plantiff or defendant? That's crazy if only 1 in 6 cases results in wins for the victims. That means the number of cases has skyrocketed or the settlements. You can't put a price on someone dying but I think the standard is around $1-2M because that essentially will set someone up for life in exchange for their loss.

Plaintiff's. A 17% win rate is horrible...it means there are a lot of malpractice suits happening with no grounds...Also, these people will sue, win, and receive more money than any of us will ever have...and they're scumbags on top of it (not donating the organs, asking for second opinions...WHEN THEY DONT EVEN HAVE THE MONEY FOR A FIRST OPINION!).

digamma · 02-23-2003, 02:13 PM

I wonder about this 1 in 6 statistic being reported. It may well be the case that 1 in 6 cases that go to a trial are favorable to the plaintiff, but if that's the case then it disregards cases filed that don't go to trial (mostly because they are settled beforehand). I would guess that doctors having to pay settlements to avoid legal fees is what is causing the insurance rates to rise.

rexalllsc · 02-23-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeeberD
My father is a doctor (an OB-GYN) and he is being sued by a woman who says that he removed her uterus without her permission. Umm, yeah, sure he did. Apparently this woman has sued several other doctors before, and she has no case since her signature is all over the paperwork saying what was going to be done, but the fact is that this nonsense case is going to cost thousands of dollars and tie up our already full legal system. Our society is way too litigous. People just need to quit trying to treat the court system like the lottery...

She should be counter-sued and jailed for making false claims...

sterlingice · 02-23-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

She should be counter-sued and jailed for making false claims...

Because she doesn't have one red cent. That's why she's suing. It would cost him more in legal fees than he would get from this b*tch.

SI

rexalllsc · 02-23-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
Because she doesn't have one red cent. That's why she's suing. It would cost him more in legal fees than he would get from this b*tch.

SI

She should be publicly caned.

QuikSand · 02-23-2003, 04:55 PM

There are some who would argue that an importrant part of this country's legal system is that it provides incentives. We may not like it when someone "hits the jackpot" after having harm done them by someone else's error or malfeasance. But having a policy that compensates the wronged, at the expense of the responsible party, does provide those actors with an incentive to behave responsibly.

And without allowing those wronged to be compensated, who else will have a stake in enforcing greivances? The government? Hiring a new army of civil attorneys to work for the government and monitor and enforce behavior of private people and entities would engender even more enemies than the legal system.

Of course, we could have a system (called for earlier here) of "someone made a mistake... oh, well." Doesn't it seem likely that if there were no system to enforce responsible behavior, cmopensate the wronged, and even punish the violators - that we would have more and more cases of "oops, someone made a mistake." Incentives are what the system is about. The fact that hospitals (or any person or entity with occasion to potentialy harm someone) are on the hook for big money for a big blunder is part of the reason why stories like this are as rare as they are.

I am not exactly a defender of the status quo. I join the majority in feeling, generally, that we in the USA are over-litigated, over-lawyered, and overly-liability conscious. I agree that sensible tort reform is a policy priority.

But let's not fall for the simple-minded belief that we can rend asunder a component of an entire system of public justice, and that doing so wouldn't have any secondary consequences. Don't want families to "hit the jackpot" when their loved ones die at the hands of institutions? Fine. Understand that a lot more of these mistakes will happen, once we remove the essential incentives for risk management.

Tekneek · 02-23-2003, 05:21 PM

I'm not sure if this is actually preferable, but sometimes it would be nice if the loser in any lawsuit paid 100% of all the fees for all sides involved.

ACStrider · 02-23-2003, 07:55 PM

digamma - I think you have a point here. From what I hear, and EXTREMELY small percentage of cases actually make it to court. Most (both criminal and civil) are settled out of court. This is probably for two reasons. First, the side which looks like it wants to lose doesn't want to leave with nothing, so comprimise is in order. Second, the cost of a court case is very high, so even if a side looks like they are going to win, it may be worth their while to be safe and take a bit of a hit but not have to face the in court costs.

Quik - I think you were refering to my post when I commented about the mistake deal. I think we're actually in the same boat or maybe one of us is misinterpreting the other. I actually don't have a problem with high money lawsuits. If a company/person is responsible for negligant behavior, I think they should be sued to the max. Where I do have a problem is with that because the winner pays the cost of the trial, it gives very little incentive for an offended party not to sue even for things that are simple mistakes and not negligance. The result is a rampant lawsuit culture which does a cost analysis and sees that it's worth it to try a lawsuit even if the chances of winning are small. I guarantee you, people would think twice about frivilously suing if they don't have a solid case and the cost could be thousands of dollars. It would force lawyers to be more responsible too since many of their customers would be less likely to pay if the possibility of loss means no money in return.

Tekneek - see the note to Quik

clintl · 02-23-2003, 09:56 PM

Having served on three juries involving personal injury cases (none of the three involved huge damages, by the way), my own opinion is that the case most likely to go to trial is one that's too close to call in advance. I think most people will settle if they know they are going to lose. This might not be true when corporations or other large organizations are involved, though.

ACStrider · 02-24-2003, 05:41 AM

And Clintl, you raise another issue that shows the problem with the system as it is. Guess who really gets screwed over...the small business owners...the people who can't afford to have lawyer expenses as a regular part of their budget.

clintl · 02-24-2003, 11:09 AM

I kind of disagree with you there, ACStrider. A private person and a small business owner are on relatively equal ground with respect to resources in a lawsuit. And, while there are certainly exceptions, I think most of the time smart small business owners can avoid most suits by adopting the philosophy that satisfying the customer is more important than making sure you're not getting cheated by them.

FWIW, the three cases I was a juror for did not involve businesses as defendants. Two of them involved injuries to people hired to do work at someone's home, and the third was a traffic accident case.

02-20-2003, 12:20 PM	#2
Qwikshot Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ...down the gravity well	Biggest SNAFU ever __________________ "General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else, but from that day on, mother rabbits would tell their kittens that if they did not do as they were told, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him." Watership Down, Richard Adams

02-20-2003, 12:27 PM	#3
bbor Pro Starter Join Date: May 2001 Location: toronto	Thank god they were able to rectify this...what a horror story. __________________ Pumpy Tudors Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.

02-20-2003, 12:55 PM	#4
JeeberD General Manager Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Town of Flower Mound	My A&P Prof was talking about this yesterday. We're going over the immune system right now, and this is a perfect example of the body attacking "foreign" tissue. She also said that the chances of them finding another, correct heart and set of lungs was practically nil. I'm glad they bucked the odds and I really hope the young lady pulls through this. __________________ UTEP Miners!!! I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO

02-20-2003, 07:15 PM	#7
mrushh High School Varsity Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dallas,Tx	My prayers are with the girl and I hope she pulls through., too. However, I think they would have killed someone themselves to find her replacement organs or they would be facing the BIGGEST LAWSUIT IN HISTORY. As is, they'll probably get crushed, anyway. __________________ Visit "Cowtown, Arise. A TCU- TCY Dynasty" in the Dynasty section.

02-22-2003, 05:45 PM	#8
Qwikshot Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ...down the gravity well	They just pronounced her brain dead, what a terrible event...and yes, I expect a big lawsuit... __________________ "General Woundwort's body was never found. It could be that he still lives his fierce life somewhere else, but from that day on, mother rabbits would tell their kittens that if they did not do as they were told, the General would get them. Such was Woundwort's monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased him." Watership Down, Richard Adams

02-20-2003, 03:42 PM	#5
Craptacular College Starter Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Mad City, WI	Although it obviously took someone else's tragedy to make it possible, I'm glad to see they were able to successfully transplant the correct organs.

02-20-2003, 05:51 PM	#6
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	My prayers are with the girl. I hope she pulls through. TroyF

02-22-2003, 06:13 PM	#9
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	You have to forgive me if I just find this such a non-news story. 1) It's only "news" because it happened to a little girl 2) The lawsuit is going to succeed because she was a minor 3) And my health care bills are going up because of one botched surgery and thousands of dollars of lawyer fees and millions of dollars paid out to the family that they don't rightfully deserve. Do they deserve more cash because it was a little girl? No, but they will get it because it will be a case decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty (ok, that was tongue in cheek, but still). Nothing like some family winning powerball at our expense because a doctor screwed up and a lawyer wanting to make a name for himself. Certainly no ammount of money can make up for the loss of a daughter, or any family member, but because of the above reactions like this by otherwise intelligent people, this case has suddenly become a media circus which helps propogate the legal problems in our country rather than fix them. Anyone crying foul just because she was a little girl had better not get pissed off about their health care costs ever again. If this were a 40yo man there would be no uproar at all and that's what's disgusting. SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

02-22-2003, 06:19 PM	#10
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	Thats pretty low sterlingice. Those parents deserve the money. I mean how hard is it to double check and make sure that the organs are the right blood type as the girl? This was a very obvious mistake, one that could have been prevented quite easily. __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

02-22-2003, 06:23 PM	#11
tucker342 Pro Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Iowa City, IA	I pretty much completely agree sterlingice. Also, I don't get how they could make such a big mistake, wouldn't you quadruple check to make sure that they're compatible? Someone really fucked up.

02-22-2003, 06:25 PM	#12
The Afoci Pro Rookie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Moorhead	One thing that pisses me off is the family is not donating her organs. out of all the people that do, you would think they would. That is very disrespectful, imho, to the people who donated organs trying to save their daughter. __________________ I had something.

02-22-2003, 06:27 PM	#14
The Afoci Pro Rookie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Moorhead	Oh yeah, my source was linked to from the drudge report. I assume it was a newspaper online site. __________________ I had something.

02-22-2003, 06:40 PM	#18
ACStrider High School JV Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Austin, TX	A bit cynical are we SI? I think you're right about what you're saying, but it does sound rather cold. Personally, I don't have a problem with big lawsuits. If the suing part makes a compelling case for a certain amount, it's agreed upon by a jury, and the judge verifies it, hey, it's the way our system is made. What drives me nuts to no end is frivilous lawsuits. Aw, I stubbed my toe on your sidewalk, I'm suing. I didn't get perfect service when I went to the hospital, I'm suing. I get stomach aches regularly because I eat five of your spicy chicken sandwiches every night in five minutes right before I go to bed everynight, I'm suing. What our country need despately is TORT reform. We need to switch to a loser pays system. That way people with legitimate lawsuits can go to court and expect justice, but people who are looking for any reason available to get money for whatever problem they have will think twice before setting foot in court. __________________ "I'm evil." "Oh you are not!" "Oh I am too." -- Brak

02-22-2003, 07:00 PM	#22
STK H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ	one of the first stories I read on this subject suggested the family paid a "human" smuggler(a "coyote") to enter the country to get her the help she obviously needed.

02-22-2003, 07:24 PM	#26
Jets80 High School Varsity Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Charlotte, NC	I hope that she was here legaly and that she was "in line" for those organs just like everyone else waiting on a transplant. That's 2 hearts and 2 lungs ( 4 people ) that could have been saved. Last edited by Jets80 : 02-22-2003 at 07:24 PM.

02-22-2003, 07:42 PM	#28
STK H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ	if she did in fact enter the country illegally, and things were overlooked considering the sympathy factor, what legal rights would the family have?

02-22-2003, 08:24 PM	#29
ACStrider High School JV Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Austin, TX	I totally agree SI. The idea of a simple accident is lost on people today. If something goes wrong, it's obviously someone's fault. And if it isn't my fault then, by golly, I deserve compensation. Whatever happened to "it's a mistake but that's life"? Where is the forgiveness and understanding that if the situation was reversed the actions wouldn't have been any different? __________________ "I'm evil." "Oh you are not!" "Oh I am too." -- Brak

02-22-2003, 08:54 PM	#32
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Apparently the second set of organs were still usable, but the family didn't want to donate the organs. Just doesn't seem fair. Obviously Duke admits its mikstake and they appear liable in any malpractice suit. The girl should have got the right organs from the start.

02-22-2003, 09:03 PM	#33
ACStrider High School JV Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Austin, TX	I was in Estonia this summer doing missions work. There was open construction in the streets, at a public water area, there were lifeguard but they weren't telling people what to do (not to run, when to jump, etc.), and at a building construction site there were wires laying around on the ground. I couldn't help but see all the potential lawsuits if this were America...I also couldn't help but wonder which country was better off in this regard. __________________ "I'm evil." "Oh you are not!" "Oh I am too." -- Brak Last edited by ACStrider : 02-22-2003 at 09:04 PM.

02-22-2003, 09:22 PM	#34
CHEMICAL SOLDIER College Starter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada	It's just sad that the donated organs will not be donated again to be used by a needy recipient . __________________ Toujour Pret

02-23-2003, 02:13 PM	#36
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	I wonder about this 1 in 6 statistic being reported. It may well be the case that 1 in 6 cases that go to a trial are favorable to the plaintiff, but if that's the case then it disregards cases filed that don't go to trial (mostly because they are settled beforehand). I would guess that doctors having to pay settlements to avoid legal fees is what is causing the insurance rates to rise.

02-23-2003, 04:55 PM	#40
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	There are some who would argue that an importrant part of this country's legal system is that it provides incentives. We may not like it when someone "hits the jackpot" after having harm done them by someone else's error or malfeasance. But having a policy that compensates the wronged, at the expense of the responsible party, does provide those actors with an incentive to behave responsibly. And without allowing those wronged to be compensated, who else will have a stake in enforcing greivances? The government? Hiring a new army of civil attorneys to work for the government and monitor and enforce behavior of private people and entities would engender even more enemies than the legal system. Of course, we could have a system (called for earlier here) of "someone made a mistake... oh, well." Doesn't it seem likely that if there were no system to enforce responsible behavior, cmopensate the wronged, and even punish the violators - that we would have more and more cases of "oops, someone made a mistake." Incentives are what the system is about. The fact that hospitals (or any person or entity with occasion to potentialy harm someone) are on the hook for big money for a big blunder is part of the reason why stories like this are as rare as they are. I am not exactly a defender of the status quo. I join the majority in feeling, generally, that we in the USA are over-litigated, over-lawyered, and overly-liability conscious. I agree that sensible tort reform is a policy priority. But let's not fall for the simple-minded belief that we can rend asunder a component of an entire system of public justice, and that doing so wouldn't have any secondary consequences. Don't want families to "hit the jackpot" when their loved ones die at the hands of institutions? Fine. Understand that a lot more of these mistakes will happen, once we remove the essential incentives for risk management.

02-23-2003, 05:21 PM	#41
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	I'm not sure if this is actually preferable, but sometimes it would be nice if the loser in any lawsuit paid 100% of all the fees for all sides involved.

02-23-2003, 07:55 PM	#42
ACStrider High School JV Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Austin, TX	digamma - I think you have a point here. From what I hear, and EXTREMELY small percentage of cases actually make it to court. Most (both criminal and civil) are settled out of court. This is probably for two reasons. First, the side which looks like it wants to lose doesn't want to leave with nothing, so comprimise is in order. Second, the cost of a court case is very high, so even if a side looks like they are going to win, it may be worth their while to be safe and take a bit of a hit but not have to face the in court costs. Quik - I think you were refering to my post when I commented about the mistake deal. I think we're actually in the same boat or maybe one of us is misinterpreting the other. I actually don't have a problem with high money lawsuits. If a company/person is responsible for negligant behavior, I think they should be sued to the max. Where I do have a problem is with that because the winner pays the cost of the trial, it gives very little incentive for an offended party not to sue even for things that are simple mistakes and not negligance. The result is a rampant lawsuit culture which does a cost analysis and sees that it's worth it to try a lawsuit even if the chances of winning are small. I guarantee you, people would think twice about frivilously suing if they don't have a solid case and the cost could be thousands of dollars. It would force lawyers to be more responsible too since many of their customers would be less likely to pay if the possibility of loss means no money in return. Tekneek - see the note to Quik __________________ "I'm evil." "Oh you are not!" "Oh I am too." -- Brak

02-23-2003, 09:56 PM	#43
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Having served on three juries involving personal injury cases (none of the three involved huge damages, by the way), my own opinion is that the case most likely to go to trial is one that's too close to call in advance. I think most people will settle if they know they are going to lose. This might not be true when corporations or other large organizations are involved, though.

02-24-2003, 05:41 AM	#44
ACStrider High School JV Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Austin, TX	And Clintl, you raise another issue that shows the problem with the system as it is. Guess who really gets screwed over...the small business owners...the people who can't afford to have lawyer expenses as a regular part of their budget. __________________ "I'm evil." "Oh you are not!" "Oh I am too." -- Brak

02-24-2003, 11:09 AM	#45
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	I kind of disagree with you there, ACStrider. A private person and a small business owner are on relatively equal ground with respect to resources in a lawsuit. And, while there are certainly exceptions, I think most of the time smart small business owners can avoid most suits by adopting the philosophy that satisfying the customer is more important than making sure you're not getting cheated by them. FWIW, the three cases I was a juror for did not involve businesses as defendants. Two of them involved injuries to people hired to do work at someone's home, and the third was a traffic accident case.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)