References
- King J H. Search of a standard of care for the medical profession-the “accepted practice”. Formula. V and. L. Rev. 1975; 28: 1213–1278
- Marks R M, Sachar E J. Undertreatment of medical inpatients with narcotic analgesics. Ann Intern Med 1973; 78: 173–181
- Rich B A. A legacy of silence: Bioethics and the culture of pain. J Med Humanities 1997; 18: 233–259
- His masterful multidisciplinary analysis of pain in society, David Morris presciently postulated: “The ethics of pain management, unfortunately, may not receive proper attention until the first doctor is successfully sued for failing to provide adequate relief.”. The Culture of Pain, D B Morris. University of California Press, Berkeley 1991; 192
- 1989, No. 89 CVS 64 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 15)
- Rich B A. Moral lessons from the jury box. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2002; 16: 81–92
- v. Bergman Chin, No. H205732–1 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 1999). The details of this case are also extensively described in the article referenced in note 6 above
- It would be interesting, but beyond the scope of this selection, to ponder the ethical and policy implications of this approach, The California Assembly appears to be of the mind that the pain and suffering imposed upon non-elderly patients from sub-standard care is not of sufficient moral consequenceto merit a legal means of recovery after the death of the patient, whereas the pain and suffering inflicted upon elderly patients by the type of grossly negligent care that rises to the level of elder abuse is. Since in both situations the patient who actually experienced the pain and suffering is deceased, the damages recoverable under the elder abuse statute are more plausibly for the purpose of punishing the perpetrator or deterring those similarly situated rather than as compensation to the injured party. Yet, in the cases considered in this selection, the line between medical malpractice and elder abuse is arguably a very fine one, and deterrence of substandard pain management by health care professionals should be a laudable public policy in both instances
- It is important to note that Dr. Chin continues to adamantly dispute many of the claims by the Bergman family in this litigation, For example, he asserts, with supporting testimony from the nursing staff, that additional administrations of Demerol were provided whenever the patient reported significant pain levels, and that these were adequate to alleviate the pain. He also disputes that a definitive diagnosis of advanced lung cancer had been or could have been made since William Bergman refused to consent to a lung biopsy
- This award was subsequently reduced by the trial judge to $250,000, the cap imposed by California law on the damages that can be recovered for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, Since both parties decided not to appeal the jury's verdict, there will be no appellate court review of the legal question whether the legislative cap on damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases should also limit the recovery of damages for pain and suffering in elder abuse cases. It is, at the very least, anomalous that the elder abuse statute removes the tort reform prohibition on recovering post-mortem damages for pain and suffering but not the same legislation's cap on the amount
- Tomlinson Rosa, , v. Bayberry Care Center, et al, No. C-02–00120 (Contra Costa County Superior Court, 2002)
- , This language carefully tracks the language of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). She was attempting to reassure health care professionals that aggressive palliative measures, even if they carry a risk of respiratory depression or total sedation, do not constitute physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. The problem with such statements is that they suggest that the risk of hastening death through high doses of opioids is much higher than it actually is
- Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that Vicodin is the drug of choice of California physicians for the management of mild to moderate chronic pain of both nonmalignant and malignant varieties, perhaps because as a Schedule III drug it does not trigger California's triplicate form requirement, Pursuant to legislation enacted in
- March 13, 2003, the Matter of the Accusation Against Eugene B. Whitney, MD, Case No. 12 2002 133376, Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of California
- Decision in the Matter of the Accusation Against Eugene B. Dec. 15, 2003, Whitney, MD, Case No. 12 2002 133376, Division of Medical Quality of the Medical Board of California
- Oregon. Was the first state medical board to take disciplinary action against a physician for the failure to provide appropriate care to gravely ill or dying patients. [Bilder] Case Marks Big Shift in Pain Policy, Barnett, EH 1999, The Oregonian. Sept. 2, 1999