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. 

Posted by ent lawyer at 6:00 AM

Labels: ,

24 comments:

  1. Bacon Ranch6:02 AM

    Oh shut up Entern.

    ReplyDelete
  2. sandybrook6:03 AM

    Happy Monday! :(

    ReplyDelete
  3. ViciousVivian6:03 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. surfer6:05 AM

    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.).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zilla36:07 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. auntliddy6:13 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frufra8:40 AM

      @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.

      Delete
  7. Tina Mallette6:18 AM

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zilla36:19 AM

    Thank you, from what I read it sounds like negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unknown6:23 AM

    Isn't it going to be rather difficult to pin point who exactly at the clinic is at fault?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anothergrayhare6:31 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MeanieRhysie7:10 AM

    Well, gee, Enty, I'm sure Melissa is relieved that you approve!


    ReplyDelete
  12. NapAssasin7:22 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NapAssasin7:41 AM

      Goddamn phone. EXPLORATION. not expiration.

      Delete
  13. Topper Madison7:24 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sherry7:40 AM

    What Topper said.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unknown9:08 AM

    Team Melissa.

    Her loss, her choice. She needs to do what's right for her.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brenda L9:09 AM

    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)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tina Mallette9:17 AM

    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.


    ReplyDelete
  18. nancer11:15 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  19. car541:24 PM

    +1 Nancer.
    I hope they deal with anything that went wrong during the surgery so it does not happen to anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MinPinGirl3:42 PM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  21. OKay6:22 PM

    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.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days

  • Blind Item #8
    The mother of a barely there celebrity was overheard musing about how much the sperm donor is worth way more dead than alive, at least to th...
  • Blind Items Revealed #6 - Anniversary Month
    August 1, 2014 How is it that this actress is rolling in dough? I mean she could literally shower with $100 bills every few minutes and not ...
  • Blind Item #12
    An offspring of a former A++ lister is hooking up with an A+/A list singer. Their first hookup was a messy drunken spectacle in front of sev...
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 15, 2024 Apparently, the growing rift between the alliterate one and her husband began shortly after the big funeral. The alliterate...
  • Blind Item #13
    For old times sake, these two bad actors/former co-stars/former couple hooked up. They will blame it on being drunk. 
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 16, 2024 I guess things are getting more serious considering the permanent A list "singer" has Narcan ready to go througho...
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 9, 2024 The Sean Combs of Hollywood documentary coming is going to send the alliterate one and her husband running like cockroaches....
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 16, 2024 Speaking of alliterate, this foreign born alliterate A list actor thought Oscar was a lock for his latest role. Now that he...
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 19, 2024 What is going to be crazy is this. Neither of the escorts the dead rocker slept with said they used protection. What if the...
  • Blind Item #8
    Speaking of A list actors and hookers, this A+/A list actor had a bevy of them while out of the country. His girlfriend probably wouldn'...