So do you think this constitutes medical malpractise?
July 10, 2007 1:21 PM Subscribe
Do you believe this is medical malpractise? Simply a one link post. The GMC (OK 2 links) still has to find in the case mentioned.
What do Mefites think, whether you've experienced agonal breathing or not in a neonate. Where do you fall on this issue?
This post was deleted for the following reason: Basically asking for an opinion poll about a news article probably isn't a good idea. -- cortex
-Where do you fall on this issue?-
On the side that favours less editorialising and polling in posts.
posted by peacay at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2007
On the side that favours less editorialising and polling in posts.
posted by peacay at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2007
Simply a one link post.
With a heapin' helping of editorial framing.
posted by OmieWise at 1:42 PM on July 10, 2007
With a heapin' helping of editorial framing.
posted by OmieWise at 1:42 PM on July 10, 2007
I AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED...
...to editorializing and rhetorical questions in FPPs.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:43 PM on July 10, 2007
...to editorializing and rhetorical questions in FPPs.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:43 PM on July 10, 2007
Gasping respiration is also referred to as agonal respiration and the name is appropriate because the gasping breaths appear uncomfortable and raise concern that the patient is suffering and in agony. Enough uncertainty exists about the influence of gasping respiration on patient wellbeing, that it is appropriate to assume that the gasping breaths are burdensome to patients. Therefore, gasping respiration at the end of life should be treated.posted by delmoi at 1:43 PM on July 10, 2007
We propose that there is an ethical basis, in rare circumstances, for the use of neuromuscular blockade to suppress prolonged episodes of agonal respiration in the well-sedated patient in order to allow a peaceful and comfortable death.
« Older Iraq Vets Bear Witness | The N-word is dead Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Not according to the article. They have found that it was NOT malpractice.
What they have yet to determine, however, is "whether Dr Munro's misleading of the inquiry into his use of pancuronium and inadequate note-taking constitute impairment."
In other words, whether he impeded the due process of the inquiry.
Oh, and
Do you believe this is medical malpractise?
No.
posted by dersins at 1:27 PM on July 10, 2007