It's easy to attribute this whole situation to greed and/or malice but I think that fails Hanlon's razor. I can easily see this whole situation occurring because of poor communication and the culture of paternalism in medicine. It is not hard to imagine a team of healthcare providers that know or think they know what is good for their patient and do a poor job explaining why they are making the decisions that they ar…
I don’t think being prohibited from seeking a second opinion could possibly be described as likely to just be the result of a miscommunication.
> has no right to disclose any information on this patient’s stay or condition Except that according to the article the Mayo said they would if the patient signed a release form. So the patient did so (called their bluff basically), and they still refused to discuss it. > they earnestly thought she was extremely ill. Which makes their actions less evil than the article implies. Make no difference whatsoever. People h…
I'm sure their lawyer put the kibosh on that. How could they square their claim that she was not capable of making decisions with honoring a release also signed by her?
Exactly the same way they squared having her make her own medical decisions while claiming she couldn’t.
> credit goes to a couple judges who denied the Mayo clinic's requests Also to the police, who refused to pursue the "abduction" once it was clear that the patient was being taken care of at another hospital.
The police chased the victim instead of the perpetrator believing the hospital despite the hospital's obvious lies. Yes, it's amazing they did finally stop but giving them credit for chasing a sick girl to another state is preposterous.
> The police chased the victim instead of the perpetrator believing the hospital despite the hospital's obvious lies.
They were told it was a medical emergency, and they had no information to contradict that. (Yes, obviously the parents said it wasn't, but the parents aren't trained medical professionals). Once they got conflicting information, they could back out of the matter—and did so.
So, this looks awful. I would expect for the Mayo clinic to come out with a response sometime soon. In the meantime, I'm just trying to remind myself that news stories that stoke outrage often turn out to be telling the story in the way best tuned to get forwarded and clicked on, not always the most accurate way. But, really, this looks awful.
The fact that this happened a couple of years ago seems to make the "outrage of the week" angle a bit less likely? Since the patient has recovered, attended high school for another year to great success, and enrolled in college, it's pretty clear that she is competent to make health care decisions. She wanted a second opinion. Decision-makers (perhaps no longer?) at Mayo didn't want her to get that. (A bit rich, cons…
Yeah, probably not Mayo clinic policy to imprison 18-year olds and take over guardianship, and the results afterwards make it clear their diagnosis was wrong. But, although the events were a couple years ago, the news article itself is pretty new, so I would be happy to see some comment from the Mayo clinic as to what they think went on here, and whether it was (or is) against their policy.
> has no right to disclose any information on this patient’s stay or condition Except that according to the article the Mayo said they would if the patient signed a release form. So the patient did so (called their bluff basically), and they still refused to discuss it. > they earnestly thought she was extremely ill. Which makes their actions less evil than the article implies. Make no difference whatsoever. People h…
I'm sure their lawyer put the kibosh on that. How could they square their claim that she was not capable of making decisions with honoring a release also signed by her?
Since when do hospitals have the ability to unilaterally decide someone is not capable of making their own decisions?
If they believe that is the case they get a judge to give that person a guardian, they don't just make decisions for them.
It's unconscionable to suggest that hospitals be allowed to legally kidnap people because of something as hand wavy as 'some homeless are mentally ill'.
This is a complicated issue. I've seen this happen in practice. As long as the process remains conservative and respectful of the patient, it results in better outcomes for the patient and a more peaceful society. The cases where I have seen this happen: schizophrenia, drug-induced psychosis, acute mania, dementia. Patients come out far better in an institutionalized setting, as opposed to being on the streets and wa…
Having experienced this: I think the word "conservative" doesn't quite capture the severity of detaining someone for mental health reasons. It has been argued that when someone is detained on mental health grounds, this is equivalent to a breach or suspension of the social contract in respect of that person. It is extremely unsatisfactory, though it might be a least bad option.
Outcomes might be better than if there was no intervention, but that doesn't necessarily imply that mental health services are effectively doing anything more than providing "protective custody".
Really would like to know how it got to that point. I'm not far from Mayo and its of course a well ('world renown') known hospital. I haven't heard many good stories. I know of close friends who have gone there to get help and heard multiple stories about how the Drs ego got in the way of patient care and listening to what the patient was telling them. It's sad that this is reflected in this story to what I think is the extreme and then to boot what looks to be attempts to cover it up by adding stuff onto her records after she had already left.
Would like to hear Mayo's story on this, but I have a feeling it will be more excuse/finger pointing than explanation.
I do hope that they take this as a lesson on patient care especially the Doctors.
There is a huge conflict of interest here. The hospital makes diagnosis, requests that the person lose their autonomy, gets control over that person, financially benefits from that control, and can use that control to hide any misdeeds or contrary evidence. There is also a profound disrespect for human autonomy. Hospitals disrespect autonomy for many people in many ways, with the most common being when birthing mothe…
However, guardianship or consevatorship (when the person is over 18,) imparts a fiduciary duty on the person/organization to provide for the needs of their ward. So the ability of Mayo to “financially benefit” could be subject to debate. They assume financial responsibility with the assumption of guardianship. In terms of Mayo, they are one of the best hospitals in the world, current situation notwithstanding. It isn…
> However, guardianship or consevatorship (when the person is over 18,) imparts a fiduciary duty on the person/organization to provide for the needs of their ward. So the ability of Mayo to “financially benefit” could be subject to debate.
No, it's not: the ability of conservators/guardians to benefit financially from that relationship is well-known, and is the reason why a legal fiduciary duty exists. The existence of that duty doesn't remove the ability, it just provides a basis for corrective action if it is improperly exploited.
The fact that this happened a couple of years ago seems to make the "outrage of the week" angle a bit less likely? Since the patient has recovered, attended high school for another year to great success, and enrolled in college, it's pretty clear that she is competent to make health care decisions. She wanted a second opinion. Decision-makers (perhaps no longer?) at Mayo didn't want her to get that. (A bit rich, cons…
Yeah, probably not Mayo clinic policy to imprison 18-year olds and take over guardianship, and the results afterwards make it clear their diagnosis was wrong. But, although the events were a couple years ago, the news article itself is pretty new, so I would be happy to see some comment from the Mayo clinic as to what they think went on here, and whether it was (or is) against their policy.
If actual events were largely as depicted in TFA, Mayo's interests would be best served by not addressing them at all. The publicity of the former board member's letter to a VP (but not his first name!) is a bit of a PR disaster...