Thank you SO much for the free surgery!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ryandote

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
5
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/06/20/694545.html&cvqh=itn_freesurgery


Russian Teen Dies After Brain Surgery
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago


TULSA, Okla. - A Russian teen who traveled halfway around the world so American doctors could remove a brain stem tumor, only to have the risky surgery leave him comatose, died Wednesday morning, his family said.

David Kurbanov, 16, came to St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City last year with his father after surgeon Paul Francel agreed to perform the surgery on the boy for free. An American missionary living in Russia helped organize it.

"There were a number of events, terrible things that did go wrong, and there were opportunities to prevent them," said Aleksei Tarasov, a friend of Sabit Kurbanov, the boy's father. Kurbanov does not speak English.

Kelly Bishop, the family's attorney, said he has requested an autopsy on David and could not say if his client would sue.

"Right now, Mr. Kurbanov is grieving over the loss of his son and this terrible tragedy," Bishop said. "When the dust settles, he may look at options with regard to his rights."

Last year, doctors in Moscow discovered a tumor that had wrapped around David's brain stem, crowding the portion that controls involuntary body functions such as balance, swallowing and appetite.

Surgeons in Moscow had scheduled an operation for March 2006, but warned the Kurbanovs there was a 30 percent chance David could have complications, such as partial paralysis. Surgeries like David's have a high chance of complications during recovery, such as double vision and the use of feeding tubes.

"I did everything that could possibly be done, and so did the team there," Francel said Wednesday. "In neurosurgery, if you have a tumor in your brain stem, it's almost a death sentence."

Hospital officials released a statement Wednesday saying doctors "took extraordinary life saving measures to keep David's heart beating consistent with his father's wishes, but eventually those measures were unsuccessful and David's heart stopped beating."




Maybe I'm heartless, but when I start handing out free surgery I hope there is a way to have people waive their "rights."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Surgeons in Moscow had scheduled an operation for March 2006, but warned the Kurbanovs there was a 30 percent chance David could have complications, such as partial paralysis. Surgeries like David's have a high chance of complications during recovery, such as double vision and the use of feeding tubes.
I don't really get this. So they never did the surgery in Moscow in 2006? Why not? Or did they do that surgery and THEN this one?
 
What's the point of trying to be a nice person anymore?

I swear it sucks, we're all going to end up practicing nothing but defensive medicine. I'd have loved to help the kid, but if it means my options are either not get paid or get sued, I think I might have to pass on it. I don't know if I'd accept that risk.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't really get this. So they never did the surgery in Moscow in 2006? Why not? Or did they do that surgery and THEN this one?

I got the impression that they didn't ever do it. Back in the day they used to tell Soviet citizens that the empire only had a 30% chance of falling. 30% chance of failure in Russia sounds like a raw deal.
 
I got the impression that they didn't ever do it. Back in the day they used to tell Soviet citizens that the empire only had a 30% chance of falling. 30% chance of failure in Russia sounds like a raw deal.
You gotta note though, the article talks about a 30% chance of complications such as "double vision," which is lightyears away from brain dead.:confused:


I happen to follow a Russian charity site that tracks all orphaned children and children from poor families and have difficult conditions (most often cancer) that are housed in the main children's hospital of the country, and the #1 reason why many children aren't able to undergo treatment is the cost of the materials. The doctors are provided for free by the state, but the hospitals are short on antibiotics, bandages, tools, and god knows what else. So it's not a problem of there not being intelligent physicians in Russia, but of the fact that sometimes an infection or bleeding cannot be stopped due to shortage of necessary instruments and materials, and the surgery/treatment eventually fails for reasons beyond the doctors' proficiency. And if these people were able to raise enough money to travel to the United States (like $3000), they could've raised the money to afford anything that would've prevented them from undergoing surgery in Russia. So I simply don't understand why they even went to the US to begin with - and I feel that the article doesn't explain this very well, because none of the complications they mention the Russian doctors discussing concern brain death.:confused:
 
What's the point of trying to be a nice person anymore?

I swear it sucks, we're all going to end up practicing nothing but defensive medicine. I'd have loved to help the kid, but if it means my options are either not get paid or get sued, I think I might have to pass on it. I don't know if I'd accept that risk.

This is actually a great example of how people are in fact not practicing defensive medicine (and that that claim is overblown) -- if it were defensive they never would have taken this pro bono case from across the world. And there is probably not a lot of liability unless negligence is shown, ie that the normal standard of care was not given. That the case was done as charity and that it was a hail mary type of procedure will not be lost on a judge or jury. I suspect little to no money will be collected on this claim if they even sue. And they probably won't sue without being able to demonstrate negligence, because it involves lots of international travel and related expenses, so there is out of pocket loss to the plaintiff to launch such a claim.
 
What's the point of trying to be a nice person anymore?

I swear it sucks, we're all going to end up practicing nothing but defensive medicine. I'd have loved to help the kid, but if it means my options are either not get paid or get sued, I think I might have to pass on it. I don't know if I'd accept that risk.

ah but you forgot the magical third option: not get paid AND get sued :thumbup:
 
You gotta note though, the article talks about a 30% chance of complications such as "double vision," which is lightyears away from brain dead.:confused:


I happen to follow a Russian charity site that tracks all orphaned children and children from poor families and have difficult conditions (most often cancer) that are housed in the main children's hospital of the country, and the #1 reason why many children aren't able to undergo treatment is the cost of the materials. The doctors are provided for free by the state, but the hospitals are short on antibiotics, bandages, tools, and god knows what else. So it's not a problem of there not being intelligent physicians in Russia, but of the fact that sometimes an infection or bleeding cannot be stopped due to shortage of necessary instruments and materials, and the surgery/treatment eventually fails for reasons beyond the doctors' proficiency. And if these people were able to raise enough money to travel to the United States (like $3000), they could've raised the money to afford anything that would've prevented them from undergoing surgery in Russia. So I simply don't understand why they even went to the US to begin with - and I feel that the article doesn't explain this very well, because none of the complications they mention the Russian doctors discussing concern brain death.:confused:

I agree...it is not Drs fault it is lack of financing for public hospitals.I happen to volunteer in the Ukranian hospital in 1997. Public hospitals functioned with the lack of medication, equipments and personal. There were no antibiotics, lack of food, personal, medical equipment, the hospital stuff had to keep other jobs in order to have an income, patients had to bring their own medications in order to be treated, all the equipment is made like 40 years ago and non-functional...rusty operating tables...well I can keep telling u about the conditions,no wonder they decided to come here for the treatment.
 
This is actually a great example of how people are in fact not practicing defensive medicine (and that that claim is overblown) -- if it were defensive they never would have taken this pro bono case from across the world. And there is probably not a lot of liability unless negligence is shown, ie that the normal standard of care was not given. That the case was done as charity and that it was a hail mary type of procedure will not be lost on a judge or jury. I suspect little to no money will be collected on this claim if they even sue. And they probably won't sue without being able to demonstrate negligence, because it involves lots of international travel and related expenses, so there is out of pocket loss to the plaintiff to launch such a claim.
I know what you're saying, and I'm not going to argue with you, seeing as you're a lawyer and all.

But I've seen juries in California reward the stupidest lawsuits huge sums. You'd never expect the plaintiff to win, but California jurors seem dumb enough to side with anyone that wants money. It seems to me like the hassle of a potential lawsuit, whether it goes to court or not, is a hassle enough to defer many physicians from doing this type of pro-bono work.
 
You gotta note though, the article talks about a 30% chance of complications such as "double vision," which is lightyears away from brain dead.:confused:

That sounds like a little bit of BS reporting to me. Practically everything patients consent to in a hospital has death as a side effect. I can almost guarantee that the patient signed a form that went over the risks, including death.
 
I'm not even a pre-med let alone a neurosurgeon but I would LOVE to see a surgeon report there was a 70% chance that a tumor WRAPPED AROUND a brain stem could be removed with NO side effects and that in the unlikely event there were side effects, double vision and partial paralysis were the major concerns. Hell, anesthesia can kill you before the surgeon even touches you.

**** I had to sign 50 papers saying it might kill me before they'd let me have a kidney stone removed with a scope...no incisions were even made. I cannot imagine excising a tumor wrapped around someone's brain stem without even acknowledging the possibility they might die.
 
I'm not even a pre-med let alone a neurosurgeon but I would LOVE to see a surgeon report there was a 70% chance that a tumor WRAPPED AROUND a brain stem could be removed with NO side effects and that in the unlikely event there were side effects, double vision and partial paralysis were the major concerns.

Yeah, that's pretty bogus. The later quote from the doctor ("In neurosurgery, if you have a tumor in your brain stem, it's almost a death sentence.") is likely a bit closer to the truth. And probably why he was willing to attempt the procedure for free. It was a hail mary that nobody was going to take the kid's money for.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Even Mother Theresa will get her ass sued in America.
 
" "There were a number of events, terrible things that did go wrong, and there were opportunities to prevent them," said Aleksei Tarasov"

... what is he, a wannabe brain surgeon?
 
" "There were a number of events, terrible things that did go wrong, and there were opportunities to prevent them," said Aleksei Tarasov"

... what is he, a wannabe brain surgeon?

No, he is a spokesperson for the russian abortion service. Thats really the only place they could have prevented this.
 
http://www.comcast.net/news/nationa...=/2007/06/20/694545.html&cvqh=itn_freesurgery


Russian Teen Dies After Brain Surgery
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago


TULSA, Okla. - A Russian teen who traveled halfway around the world so American doctors could remove a brain stem tumor, only to have the risky surgery leave him comatose, died Wednesday morning, his family said.

David Kurbanov, 16, came to St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City last year with his father after surgeon Paul Francel agreed to perform the surgery on the boy for free. An American missionary living in Russia helped organize it.

"There were a number of events, terrible things that did go wrong, and there were opportunities to prevent them," said Aleksei Tarasov, a friend of Sabit Kurbanov, the boy's father. Kurbanov does not speak English.

Kelly Bishop, the family's attorney, said he has requested an autopsy on David and could not say if his client would sue.

"Right now, Mr. Kurbanov is grieving over the loss of his son and this terrible tragedy," Bishop said. "When the dust settles, he may look at options with regard to his rights."

Last year, doctors in Moscow discovered a tumor that had wrapped around David's brain stem, crowding the portion that controls involuntary body functions such as balance, swallowing and appetite.

Surgeons in Moscow had scheduled an operation for March 2006, but warned the Kurbanovs there was a 30 percent chance David could have complications, such as partial paralysis. Surgeries like David's have a high chance of complications during recovery, such as double vision and the use of feeding tubes.

"I did everything that could possibly be done, and so did the team there," Francel said Wednesday. "In neurosurgery, if you have a tumor in your brain stem, it's almost a death sentence."

Hospital officials released a statement Wednesday saying doctors "took extraordinary life saving measures to keep David's heart beating consistent with his father's wishes, but eventually those measures were unsuccessful and David's heart stopped beating."




Maybe I'm heartless, but when I start handing out free surgery I hope there is a way to have people waive their "rights."

Exactly. This is ridiculous, a surgeon who is obviously at very high risk of getting sued which influences his decision on which operations to do decides to do an operation for free on someone who isn't even a US citizen, and they want to sue him?

**** this ****.
 
I'd say there is a tiny, tiny chance this will actually develop into a lawsuit, but it's pretty bizarre that the father is considering this already. I'm pretty sure though that if this went to court, any remotely decent lawyer would be able to find tons of experts who would testify that the odds of this working out AT ALL were minimal.

Remember, malpractice = negligence + harm to patient. Only the latter seems to be the case here. The patient died, but it wasn't due to the surgeon doing something that other surgeons would have done differently.

For ryandote - yeah, you'd think that in this situation, a lawsuit wouldn't even be a possibility unless the surgeon walked in with a butcher knife and stabbed the patient.
 
Maybe I'm heartless, but when I start handing out free surgery I hope there is a way to have people waive their "rights."



That can't be or else you'll risk doctors using people as lab rats to test free procedures on without risk of consequences.

They haven't stated they're going to sue. If the surgeon used chop sticks on him then Dad has the right, though it won't bring his son back.

What I find strange is that with high risk procedures, patients think they'll fall into the common outcomes whereas with common illnesses, patients seem to think they're they have some rare disease.

"Brain stem procedure? Pft! I'll fall into the 70% of those without complications."
"I have a headache. I probably have bacterial meningitis. It couldn't be from the fever I have from my recent diagnosis of sinusitis."
 
That can't be or else you'll risk doctors using people as lab rats to test free procedures on without risk of consequences.

If risks are clearly explained, and the patient agrees to the procedure.....

They haven't stated they're going to sue. If the surgeon used chop sticks on him then Dad has the right, though it won't bring his son back.

Read the part about the lawyer and exercising rights. Even thinking about is seems completely ******ed. The physician's motive in this case couldn't have been money (pro bono case) so unless he was really looking for prestige, there shouldn't be any grounds. In fact, even if he was trying to improve the procedure I've got no problem with that. The kid had NO chance without the surgery.


What I find strange is that with high risk procedures, patients think they'll fall into the common outcomes whereas with common illnesses, patients seem to think they're they have some rare disease.

"Brain stem procedure? Pft! I'll fall into the 70% of those without complications."
"I have a headache. I probably have bacterial meningitis. It couldn't be from the fever I have from my recent diagnosis of sinusitis."

Agreed, imaginations can run wild... in both cases!
 
That can't be or else you'll risk doctors using people as lab rats to test free procedures on without risk of consequences.
Interesting point, I didn't even think of this, but you're right.
 
If risks are clearly explained, and the patient agrees to the procedure.....



Read the part about the lawyer and exercising rights. Even thinking about is seems completely ******ed. The physician's motive in this case couldn't have been money (pro bono case) so unless he was really looking for prestige, there shouldn't be any grounds. In fact, even if he was trying to improve the procedure I've got no problem with that. The kid had NO chance without the surgery.




Agreed, imaginations can run wild... in both cases!



The reason for a possible malpractice case is obviously because the child died. It was probably explained that the child may die due to complications. They want to find out if there was something the surgeon/team did wrong that caused the death. They're exploring the possibilities. If fault can not be found in the actual procedure, they'll either settle or everything will be dropped.
As far as thinking it's ******ed to be going through this process, think of the father. Even though he knew he could, or will, lose his son, it's still difficult for him to wrap his mind around. They say losing a child is the worst thing a person can experience. You'd be hard pressed to find a parent who will simply shrug and go about their lives when there's a possibility that someone messed up. Parents will exhaust all resources to find out what happened.
The kid possibly had a few days, months, years, whatever to live without the surgery but he's dead now after the surgery. If there was something the surgeon did wrong, the father lost those precious days with his son and his son the right to those precious days as well.
The father is going through the channels to see what happened. Perhaps it is malpractice, perhaps it was simply complications. The autopsy will tell. Until then, nobody can really say they have a case.
It's right here:
Kelly Bishop, the family's attorney, said he has requested an autopsy on David and could not say if his client would sue.


As far as risks explained to patients regarding experimental procedures...you should know how advertisement works. There are people who aren't too bright and could be convinced to walk into a fire. You can't let that go unchecked.
 
**** I had to sign 50 papers saying it might kill me before they'd let me have a kidney stone removed with a scope...no incisions were even made. I cannot imagine excising a tumor wrapped around someone's brain stem without even acknowledging the possibility they might die.

Just because you sign the papers doesn't mean that you fully understand what they mean (not you, specifically, just in general).

And frankly, in the US, just because you signed the papers, it doesn't mean you can't sue.

I wonder what judge would really allow such a lawsuit. Suing over a free surgery? Haven't people ever heard of, "you get what you pay for"? I can't fathom that there a whole ton of negligent surgeons (especially neurosurgeons) out there who hand out free surgeries. Seems like it's something that top doctors can only get away with (but what do I know, really....)
 
Top