are you unreasonable to sue me? [[SPOILER ALERT for Greys Anatomy added by MNHQ]]

(73 Posts)

BEAR WITH ME PEOPLE

Your son has an autoimmune disease. A very serious one, they have literally no antibodies. Meaning they simply cannot come out of their protective room, you can't touch them, they can't touch you, if they go out of their protective room (which is in a hospital) even the slightest antigen can kill them.

I have a pioneering new treatment that can save his life and make his life more liveable, and bring those antibodies right back up. I know it works. The only thing is, this treatment is basically injecting your son with a strain of HIV. The HIV is 'inactive' meaning you wouldn't be HIV positive or have any of the negative effects.

On the last minute, you refuse the treatment.

I am very naughty indeed and decide to give your son the injection anyway without you knowing.

In a few days, he gets better. He can go home. You think it's because you've waited - but there was no chance of him getting better this way. I tell you what I have done.

You speak to legal and decide you're going to sue me for assault and battery.

On reflection, do you think this is the right thing to do?

People may soon recognise where I've got this from grin it got me thinking and I'm genuinely interested in people's thoughts

Normalisavariantofcrazy Mon 12-May-14 21:55:58

Informed consent.

On the basis you didn't get consent id sue you. Id be pleased the treatment worked but pissed off you physically assaulted my child

Where's this from?

Grey's Anatomy <shifty look>

Don't say where it's from - massive spoiler!!!

OH FACK PLEASE REPORT MY POST!

Shit

You're going to get your ass handed to you grin

Oh feck <prays the Grey's Anatomy lot aren't online>

mineofuselessinformation Mon 12-May-14 21:59:21

I can see this from both points of view (I haven't seen it in the news but assume that's where it's from...)
Surely the right way is to apply to the courts?
Maybe there wasn't time in this instance.
By the way, I have a DC who has an auto- immune condition (whilst not as life-changing as this admittedly) and I would love it if there was a cure... Currently they are reasonably well, but I know they may well not survive me.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Mon 12-May-14 21:59:33

I don't watch that shit so you're safe with me grin

softlysoftly Mon 12-May-14 22:00:58

I'm online angry

On holiday though so GA is on record at home <<glares>>

<<glares a bit more >>

restandpeace Mon 12-May-14 22:01:20

No i wouldnt sue

Oh softly I do apologise flowers

MammaTJ Mon 12-May-14 22:02:33

Ignoring knowledge.

You cannot do this.

OldLadyKnowsSomething Mon 12-May-14 22:02:35

But what would one sue for? Surely you sue for damages which result in some sort of loss, increased pain etc. That's not the case here.

softlysoftly Mon 12-May-14 22:02:46

I might Sue you for emotional distress with ya damn spoilers.

<<glares once more for good measure>>

WetDogLovesHubert Mon 12-May-14 22:03:22

Bastards.

Normalisavariantofcrazy Mon 12-May-14 22:04:17

You'd sue for assault.

They caused physical harm by piercing your skin with a needle and putting a foreign liquid into your body without your consent, that's assault.

RocknRollNerd Mon 12-May-14 22:04:26

Another one glaring...

Normalisavariantofcrazy Mon 12-May-14 22:04:46

Also psychological distress caused by the fear it may not work

From an ethics and future HCP point of view, completely and utterly wrong. On all levels.

sallysparrow157 Mon 12-May-14 22:05:06

In this kind of situation, if it was felt the treatment was in the child's best interests and risks outweighed the benefits, you could go to court and gain consent to treat the child.
In the situation where a child is about to die or suffer significant harm and the parent refuses the treatment the doctors can act in the patient's best interest.
So in this situation (or, in real life something like a kid with leukaemia and the parents are saying they don't want chemo) if a doctor took it upon themselves to treat the child without taking it through the courts they would not be doing the right thing, however morally 'right' it feels.
On the other hand, if it was a child about to die of meningococcal sepsis and the parents said no to any antibiotics, or the child had major internal bleeding and the parents didn't want an operation, the doctor could legally over-ride them to save the child's life
That's how it works in the uk, the laws in other countries are different

Cataline Mon 12-May-14 22:05:07

Unexpected bastard spoiler- my one best show!!! * Runs away to forget ever reading this....

I'd contact the Police and your employers because you ignored my wishes I would have let you do it but YNWIM. I wouldn't sue because there are no damages, only benefits.

I would just like to point out because my post telling you where I've got this from will hopefully be deleted soon - THIS IS NOT ME REALLY. I'M SPEAKING FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CHARACTER IN A PROGRAMME

Sorry, had to really stipulate that out for my own good grin

Sorry about the spoiler, feel really bad now

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now