Did FDR’s Doctors Commit Medical Malpractice?
In today’s NY Times there is an intriguing article on the cause of FDR’s death–something that has never been clear due to the shroud of secrecy maintained over the health problems of presidents of the time. The article’s author, Dr. Lawrence K. Altman, asks if FDR had a melanoma above his left eyebrow, and if so, did its unchecked progression cause the stroke that ultimately took the 32nd president’s life? Look carefully at the changes in the spot in the photos featured in the article, which show progression of the spot between 1936 and 1939, followed by its absence in 1944.
Among the interesting asides within the article is that at the time (the 1930s and 1940s) doctors “paid far less attention than they do now to moles suspected of being melanomas.” Maybe so. But given how long this changing mole was present on the most visible bodily part of a president of the U.S., could F.D.R.’s physicians have been guilty of medical malpractice?
Given the times, that would probably be a stretch. But Dr. Altman makes an excellent point in closing.
“All presidents and their doctors should make full disclosures about their health. As long as crucial facts are kept secret, theories, conspiracies and hype may tarnish their image and long outlive them.”
Nuggets of Tort “Reform”
From Colorado, and particularly the Durango Herald, we get to see firsthand one of the truly significant problems with tort “reform.” Its supporters are not intelligent. The dead giveaway comes when the writer expresses his outrage that doctors are now forced to practice defensive medicine, when they should be practicing “offensive” medicine.
Well, you see, that “offensive” medicine is exactly what too many doctors have been practicing for too many years, which is why tort “reform,” which shields doctors and hospitals from accountability for their offenses to patients, is not a wise idea. It is “offensive” when a surgeon operates at the wrong site because he was too busy to perform a preoperative time out to verify the spot with the surgical team. It is “offensive” when that misstep seriously injures or kills the same patient. And it is especially “offensive” when tort “reform” imposes arbitrary limits on the amount of awards to such victims of medical malpractice at trial, often preventing realistic compensation, and always robbing the jury of its power and right to assess each case on its own merits, and act accordingly.
Meanwhile, hospitals continue to value profit over patient welfare, and act–or fail to act–accordingly. The Pop Tort has a heartbreaking round up of stories on the failure of New Orleans-area hospitals to outfit their facilities properly with generators in anticipation of flooding. Along came Katrina, and patients on life-support died slow, agonizing deaths when the power failed, and could not be replicated by other sources. Offensive? As one of the least intelligent of the tort “reformers” likes to say, “You betcha!!
Remember When Steering Wheels Were For Driving?
Hopefully you have all seen the steering wheel desk for sale at Amazon.com. The important thing is the “comments” section. Many are hysterically funny. And they should be, since they are in response to an idea that is ridiculous and frightening all at the same time.
Interestingly, a steering wheel desk has received the recent attention of the Appellate Division, Third Dept., after a driver who “may” have been using one crashed into and injured two passengers in another car. According to today’s New York Law Journal, such a desk served as the resting place for a laptop computer, the screen of which was flipped up and “turned on, indicating recent use,” according to Justice Anthony T. Kane.
As a result of this evidence, obtained in large part by the tow truck driver who responded to the scene of the accident, the Third Dept. has ordered that the cell phone records ( there were 3 in the car, along with the laptop, at the time of the accident) as well as the wireless air card from the laptop, be subject to disclosure in the lawsuits filed by the injured passengers, who contend that the driver of the vehicle that hit them may have been distracted by his electronic communications devices.