Crazy Days and Nights: No Joan Rivers Autopsy

Monday, October 20, 2014

No Joan Rivers Autopsy

At the time Joan Rivers died, her daughter, Melissa Rivers decided against an autopsy. Because of that, it may never be clear what actually caused the death of her mom, but it probably isn't necessary to for one to have been performed to sue the clinic that performed the procedure. Melissa knew that Joan's procedure had been botched before Joan died. If Melissa' lawyers thought it necessary, it probably would have been performed. Melissa didn't want her mother opened up for no important reason and I can fully understand that. If Melissa decided she didn't want to sue, I would be ok with that too except that I think something should be done about the people involved in this and Melissa suing is probably the best way for that to be accomplished.

24 comments:

Bacon Ranch said...: Oh shut up Entern.; 6:02 AM
sandybrook said...: Happy Monday! :(; 6:03 AM
ViciousVivian said...: I wouldn't sue, if I were her. It'll take years and an enormous amount of energy and time spent with lawyers. Melissa has a career and a young child. If I were her, I'd rather focus on the future than the past.; 6:03 AM
surfer said...: Also, autopsies go against Jewish law (has to do with desecrating a body). Except in unusual circumstances (young person dies of no known cause, murder, etc.).; 6:05 AM
Zilla3 said...: It is important to hold this clinic and that doctor legally liable. Melissa is absolutely doing the right thing by suing.

I do recall that Joan was sent to cremation pretty quickly, so I hope everything that needed to be examined was.; 6:07 AM
auntliddy said...: Agree with vivian. Everyhing ive read sounds like accident. My nurse friend had to sit in on an autopsy, and she said if we cld see what they hv to do, we wldnt hv it done to loved one.; 6:13 AM
Tina Mallette said...: Yes surfer I thought part of the aversion to an autopsy would be a religious one.

The reason for suing would be to ensure this does not happen again if one feels the evidence points to negligence or malfeasance.

For example if the consent Joan signed did not contain permission to do that biopsy. If it was negligent not to have performed the scope itself at a hospital vs
a clinic. I wonder if even if a patient consented if they consented based on bad medical advice is it any less negligent - it would depend on what a "reasonable doctor" would have done under the circumstances. Patients don't always know what is good for them, after all the doctor is supposed to be the expert, and if you didn't point out all the risks or options before hand?

But then are there other legal avenues like a complaint vs the doctor or doctors or clinic via the medical body in charge of licencing etc?; 6:18 AM
Zilla3 said...: Thank you, from what I read it sounds like negligence.; 6:19 AM
Unknown said...: Isn't it going to be rather difficult to pin point who exactly at the clinic is at fault?; 6:23 AM
Anothergrayhare said...: Still can't believe she is gone so quickly. Such a vibrant woman, despite her age. Sympathy to Melissa. She will choose what is right for her and her family.; 6:31 AM
MeanieRhysie said...: Well, gee, Enty, I'm sure Melissa is relieved that you approve!; 7:10 AM
NapAssasin said...: The release you sign gives the physicians permission to do procedures outside what you may be scheduled for. Should the doctor see something that needs attention during the procedure they have the right to diagnose through expiration or, through further surgical action, fix it. It is difficult to sue when the acting surgeon states he had the necussaru equipment and time to fix it and anesthesia consents to a further procedure. That being said, you take a selfie during a procedure and you should lose your liscense at the very least, but the clinic as a whole is not at fault. Most surgeons are contracted to multiple sites anyway. This was probably one of many for this asshole.; 7:22 AM
Topper Madison said...: Unless there was some sort of intentional negligence (and it doesn't sound like that was the case), isn't it pretty hard to win a case against a doctor who was performing a surgery? I mean, all surgery involves risk--including the chance of death--and people sign off on that before they go in.; 7:24 AM
Sherry said...: What Topper said.; 7:40 AM
NapAssasin said...: Goddamn phone. EXPLORATION. not expiration.; 7:41 AM
Frufra said...: @liddy - what I came here to say, too. Mr. F has witnessed several autopsies, and he's pretty convicted that one should never be performed on a loved one unless absolutely necessary or required by law. He's seen a lot, including dead bodies that have been undiscovered for days and days, and the autopsies disturbed him on an entirely new level.; 8:40 AM
Unknown said...: Team Melissa.

Her loss, her choice. She needs to do what's right for her.; 9:08 AM
Brenda L said...: I'm surprised they didn't overrule Melissa and do an autopsy anyway. Where I live, I think it's pretty standard where if there is any chance in hell of foul play, there's going to be one no matter what. Also, anyone young that dies gets an autopsy no matter what. (which Joan wasn't but just saying); 9:09 AM
Tina Mallette said...: Just watch CSI and copy that sentiment.

Well intentional negligence sounds more like a crime. See Murray, Dr. Conrad. In medical malpractice, you have the consent issue on one hand but then you have whether the medical personnel involved in all phases of this procedure acted with the accepted standard of care for that procedure and in general, or the "reasonable" standard of care. There are mistakes that are avoidable if you are following the standard of care expected, like leaving sponges in a patient, and mistakes that are unavoidable and part of the risk of the procedure.

Having worked on some of these kind of cases a long long time ago, the biggest problem is getting another doctor to testify that the doctors in question failed to meet the standard of care. You usually had to go out of town to find a doctor willing to do that or there is always one doctor who becomes the malpractice go to doctor but then that makes him or her a little less credible, the defence will paint the doctor as the hired gun rather than someone impartial. Unless he or she has impeccable credentials. Like the surgeon who is a pioneer or perceived best in his field. LA probably not a problem but where we were, it was. All the doctors in the same field know each other very well.

Was someone supposed to monitoring JR at all times and someone dropped the ball. Did they have all the equipment and means necessary in case something went wrong which would have been the standard of care in these cases? Would she be alive and/or not brain damaged if this had been done in a hospital setting? Is it reasonable to accept a lesser standard of care in clinics?

A lot of people claiming to be in the medical profession have commented online that Joan should have had these procedures done in a hospital given her age and maybe given other issues in her medical history. Which suggests that all stand alone clinics are providing a lesser standard of care so do patients understand that for the lesser wait times that they are accepting a lesser overall standard of care as a rule. With some hospitals this is debatable.

Even if Joan consented, was it explained to her that if something went wrong, the clinic might not have the equipment available to deal with it quickly enough? If that was the case we are not sure.

The other reality is who reads the medical consent word for word, it is like the fine print in many contracts which many courts have ruled against in many circumstances. There is a lot of case law on this issue.

A good lawyer can find ways around this. I still think the doctors involved have to spell out verbally the specific risks or potential scenarios and explain all the options, if not make sure it is not just your standard form consent but set out the specific risks to the specific procedure. Just because you are a clinic and financially you don't want your patients to go to a hospital does not absolve you from pointing out that option to the patient if that option would be safer or considered prudent.; 9:17 AM
Unknown said...: Ha!@Meanie!; 10:39 AM
nancer said...: my prediction is there will be no trial but a quiet settlement.

but it's not irrelevant what happened, which they can't prove now without that autopsy. it's VERY relevant. who fucked up? the anesthesiologist? the surgeon? the other surgeon? who?
liability is key in a civil case, and i know that because i was a plaintiff in one.

i'm also a nurse and autopsies may not be pretty, but it's a dead body and your loved one is no longer using it. so if you need one done, you should get one.; 11:15 AM
car54 said...: +1 Nancer.
I hope they deal with anything that went wrong during the surgery so it does not happen to anyone else.; 1:24 PM
MinPinGirl said...: The woman was over 80 for god sake. You can't tell me she didn't know the risks going in. Especially as many times as she'd had surgeries before. Trust me you sign all sorts of things telling you what can happen. If she wasn't famous I don't think this would be news. I feel sorry for Melissa & her family though.; 3:42 PM
OKay said...: Melissa Rivers irritates me to no end. Okay, so apparently the "No autopsy" rule is a Jewish thing, and I can respect that. But you don't get to whine about "negligence" or whatever the hell else until you have a cause of death. As your starting point.; 6:22 PM

Disclaimer & Privacy Policy

Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site. The site publishes rumors, conjecture, and fiction. In addition to accurately reported information, certain situations, characters and events portrayed in the Blog are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Blog’s proprietor does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Crazy Days and Nights.

Cookies & 3rd Party Advertisements Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site. Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet. Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit https://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp.

Advertisements

Commenting Rules

Advertisements

Blog Archive

Monday, October 20, 2014

No Joan Rivers Autopsy

24 comments:

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days

Advertisements

Patreon

Search Crazy Days and Nights

Get in touch & Follow us

Advertisements

Labels

Advertisements

Design By

Advertisements

Disclaimer & Privacy Policy