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

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

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 it got me thinking and I'm genuinely interested in people's thoughts

Oh FFS, now I am going to have get really drunk so I forget I've read this. Nightmare.

Criminal charges yes but you can claim compensation for physical and psychological injuries arising from assault

gee thanks

Tequila you big ruiner!

Right okay people I've said I'm sorry for the spoiler, I had actually thought you'd be up to date obviously not. Thanks to those who have taken it better than others :) I'm a nob I know!

I feel partially responsible for asking where it's from

Tequila the Ruiner of Crappy but oh so addictive US TV Shows

I'll get ma

Not meaning to derail the thread, but didn't something fairly similar happen in RL when a boys mother didn't want to treat his brain tumour and the court stepped in and she ran away with the little boy?

I do wonder what the court outcome would be though.

clash yes I remember reading about that!

I think the difference is in this it's a very very new treatment which hadn't been certified yet

But there's no (lasting) physical injury, and if no-one knew what was being done, there's no psychological damage either.

That's what you could argue oldlady but if this did go to court in real life, the doctor would never work again and would probably face a jail sentence. What they did was completely and utterly wrong in the eyes of law, and medical ethics.

But from a parents point of view.. I dunno. Saved my kids life?

Psychological damage could include losing all trust in the medical profession which in turn could compromise yours and your child's long term health

I think another issue would be the long term effects of the drug administered.

Oh, absolutely, it's totally unethical and even criminal. But I still don't see how the patient or his/her parents could sue for damages.

Tut tut tequila. I don't watch that shite though . Technically yes you could be sued. Morally though, I don't think I would because the outcome was good. If it hadn't been good I would have sued!

I would sue

You didn't gain consent, you knew my feeling on the matter and went behind my back and gave my child an untested drug.

Losing trust in the profession that saved your/your dc's life? Meh, I see where you're coming from, but I'm still going to be unsympathetic. I'd be wondering how the "damage" financially outweighs the medical costs from which you've been rescued, for starters, then moving on to the enormous benefits of being able to live a normal life.

But do you know the long term effects?

What if my dc develops some nasty condition that makes their life unbearable and unliveable 5-10 years down the line. The potential for it to stop working suddenly and compromising the immune system in a very risky time.

Loads of reasons why it's something that could warrant charges being raised

Yes, I agree it's both unethical and potentially criminal, and that the future would be unknown. But I don't see how or why you would sue (for cash compo) at that point in time; maybe later down the line if actual suffering/damage does result. Surely suing immediately would be foolish, when you could keep your powder dry in case of problems in the future? (I'm thinking here of very minor car accidents, where insurers like to pay out a fairly small sum asap, rather than risk being sued for a higher sum if injury which was not immediately apparent becomes problematic.)

But if you wait for future problems how will you prove that the drug caused them? It's untested and your child is the only person who has been given it.

You thought we'd be 'up to date'? This hasn't happened yet in the episodes being shown on UK TV so, um, cheers for that.

I wouldn't sue. I wouldn't care that you'd done what I said not to. I would only care that my child was well.

What kind of life did my child have anyway? If something goes wrong years down the line then we'll deal with it if it happens. In the meantime my child can live a full life.

If my child had a very serious autoimmune disease like that it would be just as bad as having aids so I would accept the treatment but yes there is a thing called informed consent how the courts would rule though would be interesting.

I'm not a user on these forums, I just found this and joined to comment.

Ignoring the source of the question, treating without consent is illegal. The reason I'm commenting is that I'm very familiar with the disease and the treatment personally, and that is not something to be messed with. Someone who did it could be charged with gross misconduct, not sure about sued, but their career would be OVER.

It's true that the newer forms of this therapy are safer, but previous versions have actually killed people due to producing leukemias.