Valid observation!!! Big time… as someone who survives with chronic pain it is ultimately and solely my responsibility to manage self control. And if I don’t I have no one to blame but myself. I’ve read stories and have watched documentaries about people and families blaming Doctors I absolutely do not agree unless a doctor ihas history and is “well aware” the patient has an addictive type personality or does not make the patient aware of the addictive risk to the meds.,which that does not happen! I lost a friend to an overdose six years ago,(a R.N. who knew better!!) never once did I entertain the thought the doctor was responsible, No disrespect to those who have addictions but I’ve gone to the E.D. for help in the past before my surgery where they were so kind as to give me a shot of Gods knows what,I don’t remember asking or caring. It absolutely relieved me of my pain but I feared and hated that feeling so much. Its hard for me to understand who would want to live with that scary feeling everyday all day long. Doctors intentions when giving us medicines is to help us, don’t let them be the scape goats to your weaknesses, if you get addicted its your fault and you know it your fault. Own it,be accountable and get help. Put blame where blame is due. I’m just saying…..
3. Evidence - keep track of any evidence which could be relevant to your case. Keep detailed records of your appointments with your GP, together with records of any telephone consultations and referral appointments. Your solicitor will arrange to obtain and copy of your medical notes and x-rays. You will have to pass this information on to your lawyer and it will be a lot easier if you have it at hand. Keep any prescriptions, receipts from further treatments, notes of further treatment and a diary detailing the progression of your health issues. For example, if you fell ill with appendicitis and your GP failed to diagnose it, you should keep a note of the progression of your condition, if you are well enough to do so. All of this is not vital, but very helpful.
But Clink, this isn't a case of the patient saying "If only I had known about this" it's a case of the patient saying "If the doctor hadn't lied about this when I asked." Those are two very different things. In the former case, you could say that it was something that the patient hadn't thought of beforehand and that the doctor wasn't obligated to disclose. In the latter, the patient did think about it beforehand, expressed that they considered it to be something that they needed to know, and the doctor deliberately gave them inaccurate information. You can't draw a line from one to the other that easily.
In view of Daubert and Kuhmo, the pre trial preparation of expert witnesses is critical. A problem with Daubert is that the presiding judge may admit testimony which derives from highly contested data. The judge may expand the limits contained in the "school of thought" precedent. Papers that are self-published may be admiited as the basis for expert testimony. Non-peer reviewed journals may also be admitted in similar fashion. The only criterion is the opinion of a single judge who, in all likelihood, has no relevant scientific or medical training.
The doctor's negligence caused the injury. Because many malpractice cases involve patients that were already sick or injured, there is often a question of whether what the doctor did, negligent or not, actually caused the harm. For example, if a patient dies after treatment for lung cancer, and the doctor did do something negligent, it could be hard to prove that the doctor's negligence caused the death rather than the cancer. The patient must show that it is "more likely than not" that the doctor's incompetence directly caused the injury. Usually, the patient must have a medical expert testify that the doctor's negligence caused the injury.
Anyone familiar with the Hippocratic oath understands the undeniable bond between medical care and ethics—ideally, physicians are driven by the desire to help patients, not hurt them. Yet, harm does sometimes occur, and patients have the right to hold such doctors accountable in a court of law. While the topic of not telling the truth poses more of an ethical question than a legal one, there are established legal boundaries for medical professionals that, when crossed, could justify a lawsuit.