Oooh - I read 'snaps' as in 'breaks'. That headline brought tears to my eyes!
An Arizona surgeon who used a mobile phone to photograph a patient's wedding tackle during a gallbladder operation may face disciplinary action and the wrath of his victim's attorney. According to the Arizona Republic, Dr Adam Hansen, chief resident of general surgery at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix was grassed up by a …
As soon as you walk into any hospital you are asked to turn off your phone. Which I have always done.
So was this picture taken in flight safe mode? Or are Surgeons using mobile phones in operating theatres and putting lives in jeopardy? That or there is no basis for the no mobile rule?
Last time I was operated on I had to remove absolutely everything including something as innocuous as my wedding ring. I was awake throughout and can't recall any of the nurses nor the surgeon sporting anything metal that didn't look like an instrument of torture. Also it was strictly prohibited to have a mobe switched on in case it inteferred with critical equipment.
And all the other words my lawyer told me as he rubbed his hands together with glee.
Sure, Doc really shouldn't have done that, but come on, someone who get's "Hot Rod" tattooed on his todger is going to have a sense of humour.
If not, God help this guy if he ever goes for a prostate examination!
""But now I feel violated, betrayed and disgusted. "
and I can see the $ signs floating in front of my eyes, millions of them for me an my lawyer.
Wake up fool, that lawyer has you hypnotized..
Bet you don't mind waving your wang in the Centerfold Club? So sack the f**ker and have a laugh about it while the scumbag squirms back under his rock.
..is primarily to safeguard the profits of whoever provides in-hospital telephone services to patients.
Other than in a few intensive care areas where you really don't want to risk even the tiny chance of interference with sensitive equipment (no, not the tattooed-todger type of 'equipment'; the medical kind) it's got sod-all to do with risk to patients - although arguably there is an increased risk of a sudden breathing problems if you spend all day in hospital yelling "No! I'm in a HOSPITAL!" into your phone because someone ~will~ try to strangle you.
From what I hear the ban on mobile use on petrol-station forecourts is as much to stop people blocking the pumps while chatting (and so slowing profit-making) as because of any risk of explosion - surely central locking or dodgy car electronics is more of an ignition risk than a phone.
So according to all the contributors who doubt this man feels violated, let's assume the surgeon took a photo of a female patient who worked as a stripper. I suppose you'd all be howling that she was asking for it and wouldn't mind having her picture passed around The man has a genuine claim if he so wishes to make one. Our private lives are our own and should be under our control.
Maybe in future they can add a model release clause to the consent for surgery form. Until they do then you have reason to expect a certain amount of privacy and professionalism from doctors.
on the words "surgeon" "snaps" and "todger" in the same headline. I thought he'd snapped it off in some kind of freak liquid nitrogen accident. As for the real story this reminds me of the story a few years ago of the obgyn who carved his initials in his patients abdomen after a c-section. Not quite as nasty, but still the brass balls of some physicians are hard to believe, what else has he done while his patients were out cold.
iirc something like 0.5% of hospital equipment is affected by mobile phone signals and even then you would have to be within 1m of it at full signal power. as a result hospitals have relaxed their rules on mobile phones especially since it helps doctors and nurses.
the petrol station mobile ban was simply a kneejerk reaction by the petrochemical companies to a unknown issue and has been proven completely false many times.
but back to the article i find it astonishing and wonder what frame of mind made that doctor think it was ok. there will be lawyers jumping over each other to help Dubowik sue for huge sums of money.
"It was the most horrible thing I ever went through in my life." Bless!
No defense, from me, this time against charges of 'bloody Americans just out for a buck'. Chris W's comments notwithstanding (I expect different levels of sensitivity between men and women, Chris), at first glance this looks like shameful coaching by this poor shrinking violet's lawyer.
Our local hospital got rid of the ban a few years ago, with the exception of Intensive Care wards. I think it was introduced genuinely enough. There was enough doubt about whether interference could cause problems that a "safety first" approach was sensible enough. This has now been dispproved to the extent that the NICE have removed the ruling.
Any hospitals still observing the rules can only be doing so for either profit or patient consideration (noise and annoyance).
And what's the betting this surgeon gets suspended for the non-event of "invading a patients privacy" and not the, quite serious, misdemeanour of using un-steralised equipment in the course of an operation?
This reminds me of a story I heard years ago. A surgeon was performing an appendectomy on a young lady and was surprised to find she had dyed her pubic hair green and tatooed "Keep Off The Grass" above it.
She woke to find written above said decoration - "Sorry, I had to mow the lawn!"
Ahh, those were the days......
This chap invites me over just before Christmas break to play in the hot tub with several lovely young lasses. Several of them were paying...um... "particular" attention to him. He got out of the tub to head back to the apartment to take care of business. And there, for all the world to see, was a full tat'd todger. A dragon to be specific.... coiled around with the head... well.. use your imagination. I am not given to examining other mens toolkits, but I was impressed.
This was 23 years ago, before body art became prevelant, and I only learned much later that it would have had to have been erect to have the work done. After learning that, I was even more impressed.
So while the surgeon who took the photo is now facing the music, is no one concerned about finding the other doctor who, on hearing the story in the privacy of the hospital staff room, decided that it was in the patient's best interests to phone the local newspaper and told them everything (including presumably the patients name and penis-tatoo details)?
Shoudn't he be getting a visit from the "Hot Rod" legal team too (surely they wouldn't miss a chance to double their money, dirty bastards that they are...)
If the guy was in for a gallbladder op, I assume probably keyhole, and given where the liver is located, what the hell was the surgeon doing down there anyway? Did he get confused between bladders?*
I too admit that I also initially read the headline as meaning something other than camera related, possibly indicating the result an LN spillage.
(*though I can accept the explanation is that someone probably put a catheter in and pointed out the tattoo during pre-op)
We have a couple of GSM telephones that cause interference to various home electronics (clock radio, PC speakers, etc.) even when across the room. It sounds like 'ba-dup, ba-dup, ba-dup...' from the clock radio, and then (a second later) the phone rings.
On the other hand, I have a CDMA PCS cellphone data gadget that doesn't cause a single sqeak no matter even if I put it directly on the clock radio or right next to the PC speakers. So YMMV.
And yes, I realize that medical electronics is supposed to be well-shielded. But the exercise for certification is to PROVE that nothing bad will happen - even from one cm distance (where it probably WOULD cause problems). Thus a cell phone ban is the simplest approach and not at all unreasonable.
from an atheist's point of view, this incident (with all its absurd details) proves that there is no God. an omnipotent and omniscient, yet prudish, dogmatic and micromanaging, but also merciful and benevolent God (for that is how he is described), would never allow anything like this into his great God's Plan; therefore, if the incident is real, then God is imaginary.
from a monotheist's point of view, this gives new meaning to "God works in mysterious ways."
Paris icon, as her meticulously documented existence also illustrates this point very clearly.
"I expect different levels of sensitivity between men and women"
Proving only that you are a sexist twit. There is a distribution of "sensitivities" with both men and women, and I assure you, there are men just as sensitive as the most delicate female flower. Though I will admit to questioning how many of them would ever even consider entering into bet which might result in a tat on their nether regions.
"He concluded: "The longer I sit here the angrier I get." "
It should have been: "the longer I sit here the greedier I get".
The doctor(s) should definitely be punished for this, and even a few thousand dollars fine would sure be in order. But the "millions" that 'Merkins' lawyers ask for anytime a fork is dropped sounds more like what's gonna happen here.
Medical kit is specifically exempted from most electrical rules - including basic safety. There is a syringe driver on the market that actually uses cardboard as an insulator - this model has killed 3 people in England to my knowledge and is still on sale.
Medical electronics are not normally shielded at all.
I recall from one of those memoires of a doctor books about a doctor who observed that a man had LDO tattooed on his penis, but didn't ask or comment. The patient was then sent off to see the attractive young nurse, for some cream or something, and she later said to the doctor "did you notice how he had llandudno tattooed on his penis".
They take the gall bladder out through the belly button, so depending on how large is stomach is and the distance between penis -> belly button, its possible to see it.
I had this operation done a couple years ago and form what I can tell, no todger shots. I wouldn't have cared personally. When I worked at a Verizon Wireless store, I looked at people naked self-taken pic on their cell phones all the time and shared them with others. I understand it goes both ways.
Doctor 1: "Check it out, this is hilarious."
Doctor 2: "You know you could get fined $2,000 for violating patient trust..."
Doctor 1: "Yeah, but the local paper will pay $4,000 for a story like this."
Doctor 2: "Hmm, some extra christmas money... Split the profit 50/50?"
Doctor 1: "I'll make the call."
While I agree that the petrol station ban is not safety based, I vaguely recall seeing an article (New scientist?) where a bunch of hospital equipment was tested for any response to mobile phones - and a third of the instruments promptly had tantrums (no, they weren’t running Vista as far as I know).
On a lighter note, presumably this gent didn't go to a Scottish tattooist I heard about years ago who had a sign in his window - "No Dicks, No Heads, No Dickheads"
"So according to all the contributors who doubt this man feels violated, let's assume the surgeon took a photo of a female patient who worked as a stripper. I suppose you'd all be howling that she was asking for it and wouldn't mind having her picture passed around."
That's a completely different situation. She get's naked professionally and therefore he would probably be infringing her copyright by making an unlicensed image. If she has had any surgery done then her body could be considered her IP.