John Edward's wife has breast cancer...

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

guanaco

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
and I bet he will find some excuse to sue her docs on the grounds that, they should have known that at sometime in the future she would develop it.
I would refuse to treat her on the grounds of being a "high-risk for a lawsuit" patient:


(CBS/AP) Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, was diagnosed with breast cancer the day her husband and Sen. John Kerry conceded the presidential race.

Spokesman David Ginsberg said Mrs. Edwards, 55, discovered a lump in her right breast while on a campaign trip last week. Her family doctor told her Friday that it appeared to be cancerous and advised her to see a specialist when she could.

She put off the appointment until Wednesday so as not to miss campaign time.

The Edwards family went straight to Massachusetts General Hospital from Boston's Faneuil Hall after Kerry and Edwards conceded on Wednesday.

Mrs. Edwards had a needle biopsy performed at the hospital, where Dr. Barbara Smith confirmed the cancer, Ginsberg said.

He said the cancer was diagnosed as invasive ductal cancer. That is the most common type of breast cancer, and can spread from the milk ducts to other parts of the breast or beyond.

Doctors say at age 55 she's in the highest risk group, reports CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Kaledin.

"About two-thirds of women who get breast cancer are over the age of 50. So cancer is really a disease of aging, Dr. Deborah Axelrod told Kaledin.

Mrs. Edwards prognosis depends entirely on the size of the tumor and whether or not the cancer has spread to her lymph nodes. Treatment generally involves some combination of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation:

Thursday night, the Edwards were in Washington, D.C. where they are awaiting further test results that will dictate the course of her treatment. But aides say both Mrs. Edwards and her doctors are optimistic that this breast cancer is beatable, reports Kaledin.

Ginsberg said spirits are high at the Edwards household. "Everybody feels good about it, that this is beatable," he said.

Edwards, who leaves his North Carolina Senate seat in January, said in a statement, "Elizabeth is as strong a person as I've ever known. Together, our family will beat this."

The American Cancer Society estimated that nearly 216,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year.

Treatments have been getting better. The current five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 87 percent, up from 78 percent in the mid-1980s. About 40,000 women die of breast cancer annually.

Overall, the society says about one in seven women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime.

Invasive ductal cancer accounts for 65 percent to 80 percent of all breast cancers, according to the Merck Manual of Medical Information.

Treatment usually begins with surgery, according to the National Cancer Institute. This could involve removal of the cancer itself and usually nearby lymph nodes. Lumpectomy, just removing the cancerous mass, is becoming more common, though sometimes removal of the whole breast is done.

Surgery can be followed by chemotherapy, radiation or hormone therapy.

Radiation can focus on a cancer site from a machine outside the body or use a radioactive substance placed near the cancer in "seeds" or via needle.

Chemotherapy uses drugs that can stop or slow the growth of cancer that may have spread.

Hormone therapy removes or blocks hormones that can encourage growth of cancer cells.

In early stages of cancer a combination of the drug tamoxifen and hormone therapy is commonly used, the Cancer Institute reports.

The Edwardses married in 1977. They have two daughters, Cate and Emma Claire and a son, Jack. Son Wade died in a 1996 traffic accident.

Mrs. Edwards, born in Jacksonville, Fla., grew up hopscotching between the United States and Japan. She met her future husband at University of North Carolina law school.

She juggled a successful legal career and family for 19 years. Then ? stunned by Wade's death ? she quit work to have more children at an age when many contemporaries were easing toward grandmotherhood.

On the campaign, she dubbed herself the "anti-Barbie," a quick-witted, down-to-earth political wife who connected particularly well with mothers and fathers.

Members don't see this ad.
 
"I would refuse to treat her on the grounds of being a "high-risk for a lawsuit" patient"



That is so freaking assinine! i'm sorry, once you enter the medical field, you can not pick and choose who you want to treat, whether or not they are "high risk."
 
medstudent2005 said:
"I would refuse to treat her on the grounds of being a "high-risk for a lawsuit" patient"



That is so freaking assinine! i'm sorry, once you enter the medical field, you can not pick and choose who you want to treat, whether or not they are "high risk."

Why can't you pick and choose who you want to treat? Most physicians will not see pts for free. They demand that the pt either show proof of insurance or pay cash up front. I see pts for free because I'm an ER doc and there's a federal law (EMTALA) that says I must. Docs in their offices aren't bound by that.
I anticipate a response with many assertions about what docs "should" do or how things "ought" to be but the way it's supposed to work is that a pt and a doc decide it will be mutually beneficial for them to enter a business relationship. The doc gets money and the pt gets treatment. If either party feels the relationship is not in their best interest they don't proceed. If I know that the pt is more likely to sue me then forget it. The idealism of medicine can't survive with the current med mal crisis.
 
My 0.02c-
Earlier this year there was a huge uproar in AMA on "refusing to treat trial lawyers" which was essentially rejected. There was even a website in TX which listed all the pts that have sued their docs. It shut down after generating too much controversy. It seem refusing to see pts is contrary to what we learn and practice after graduating from med-school. At least that's the general perception/public face of medicine.
That said, docschoose their pts all the time, other than emergent cases, as mentioned earlier. There is no law in the country that can penalize you for refusing to see a pt in non-emergent setting. I know about a doc(in PA) who makes his pts sign a pre-intake form which states that they will be terminated if they mention the word law-suit during pt-physician communications and they will be transferred(dumped ;) ). So I guess it really depends on you and the context of practice.
Hope this helps.
 
Of course docs can pick and choose who they see. Also, in a different way remember OB docs dont have to perform abortions etc. While these are different dont you think that docs should be allowed to treat those who they choose (except in emergent cases)
 
people don't you think there's a better way to deal with things than to say "oh, i'm mad, so i'm not gonna treat you, and you can't do anything about it, so there!" so freaking childish. this shows how freaking weak doctors are.
 
medstudent2005 said:
That is so freaking assinine! i'm sorry, once you enter the medical field, you can not pick and choose who you want to treat, whether or not they are "high risk."


Of course you can, medicine is a BUSINESS you f--kwit, ever seen a guy dragged out of the bar because he was drunk and they wouldnt serve him anymore? Thankfully, this is America and not land of ******ed self-righteous ***** who tell other people what to do. That would be Taliban medicine, are you a Taliban medstudent2005?
 
medstudent2005 said:
people don't you think there's a better way to deal with things than to say "oh, i'm mad, so i'm not gonna treat you, and you can't do anything about it, so there!" so freaking childish. this shows how freaking weak doctors are.

I want to be paternalistic and say such hackneyed things like "why don't you spend some time in the 'trenches' before you make comments about real patient care," but I <ahem> won't.

The fact of the matter is that this world is not idealistic. It would be great if this was one big functioning utopia that actually worked. Hey! It's NOT! Medicine is the BUSINESS of human lives. Our trade is fixing broken people and keeping people from getting broken. Some people violate the warranty, my friend. And then there are those that take advantage of the warranty. In order for this business to survive, we have to put our feet down. Letting ourselves be walked all over (as we have been), is in my opinion, "childish."

No shirt, no shoes, no service.
 
This thread is weird.

Can someone please tell me about Hippocrates, oath you will be taking soon, not discriminating between people based on income, gender, race, who they are etc. I do realize some people may treat this as a "business", which in the end it is--but hopefully, there is some humanistic reason as to why we are doing this.

In the end, the question is "Will you be able to sleep nice and sound knowing that there is a patient out there you did not treat just because you didn't like them?"
 
medstudent2005 said:
"I would refuse to treat her on the grounds of being a "high-risk for a lawsuit" patient"

That is so freaking assinine! i'm sorry, once you enter the medical field, you can not pick and choose who you want to treat, whether or not they are "high risk."

This is the type of crap that gives medical students a bad name.

You must be kidding. Of course physicians can choose who they treat. The only exception is the law that ER pts must be stabilized before transfer (so hope your insurance in up-to-snuff).

Guess what? If a patient doesn't show up >2 for appts. at many offices, then they get sent "discharge from practice letters" (saying something like after 30 days, all I can offer you is to transfer your records).

Guess what? There are plenty of OBs would will not take pts who will not take blood transfusions (like Jehovahs Witnesses) because the MDs feel it's too risky.

Guess what? That plastic surg clinic on the Upper East Side...cash only.

Guess what? I've seen surgeons decline to participate in the care of pts who were rude to them.

Guess what? That IM clinic in the Beverely Hills...no medicaid allowed.

THINK MAN!
 
jayjay1978 said:
This thread is weird.

Can someone please tell me about Hippocrates, oath you will be taking soon, not discriminating between people based on income, gender, race, who they are etc. I do realize some people may treat this as a "business", which in the end it is--but hopefully, there is some humanistic reason as to why we are doing this.

In the end, the question is "Will you be able to sleep nice and sound knowing that there is a patient out there you did not treat just because you didn't like them?"

Yet another clueless medical student. GEEZ.

There are NO medical schools that use the Hipp Oath in its original form, because (if you actually read it) many of its precepts cannot be applied today. Most use the Declaration of Geneva Physician's Oath (read it).
 
MS3NavyFS2B said:
Yet another clueless medical student. GEEZ.

There are NO medical schools that use the Hipp Oath in its original form, because (if you actually read it) many of its precepts cannot be applied today. Most use the Declaration of Geneva Physician's Oath (read it).

You stole my thunder :laugh: I was going to point out that none of us would be allowed to go into surgery if we used the Hippocratic Oath.
 
medstudent2005 said:
people don't you think there's a better way to deal with things than to say "oh, i'm mad, so i'm not gonna treat you, and you can't do anything about it, so there!" so freaking childish. this shows how freaking weak doctors are.
I think this is one of the most powerful tools held by physicians. I do not believe it should be called upon under most circumstances, but just imagine what would happen if physicians got fed up with all the BS in our country...
 
i think howard dean would have been a better vice-pres candidate.

edward's wife with breast cancer...i don't wish cancer on anyone, but maybe this is God's sick way of paying him back for suing doctors...

i heard he's the reason why there is a flu vaccine shortage in the country.

btw, i voted for kerry.
 
chillindrdude said:
i think howard dean would have been a better vice-pres candidate.

edward's wife with breast cancer...i don't wish cancer on anyone, but maybe this is God's sick way of paying him back for suing doctors...

i heard he's the reason why there is a flu vaccine shortage in the country.

btw, i voted for kerry.

what's the point here? Seems like a lot misinformed articulated inner monologue.

Saying the Edwards is the reason for the influenza vaccination shortage is like saying Al Gore discovered the internet.

BTW: Vice Presidential canadiates are often in the background...not screaming out random States of the Union on stage.
 
YoungFaithful said:
I think this is one of the most powerful tools held by physicians. I do not believe it should be called upon under most circumstances, but just imagine what would happen if physicians got fed up with all the BS in our country...

Note to self: I don't know any physicians that are not fed up with "all the BS in our country."
 
jayjay1978 said:
In the end, the question is "Will you be able to sleep nice and sound knowing that there is a patient out there you did not treat just because you didn't like them?"

Yes, quite soundly.

Since when does anyone have the right to medical care in this country? We're the only industrialize country left without some form of socialized medicine.

Should physicians have to work for rude people or for free? I'll make sure my years of medical training and debt get compensated appropiately, without having to deal with rude or entilted patients.
 
you know, yeah, i must be an "idiot" med student for thinking there must be a better way of dealing with our current trouble than putting someone's life in danger ! If everyone refused to treat a particular patient, well, it's ok in your view to let them suffer the consequences, because, oh golly-gee willekers, this is a BUSINESS, not some humanitarian sh+t. Yeah, i'm sure you mentioned all of this when you were interviewing. What a dumba$$ bunch of ppl.
 
medstudent2005 said:
people don't you think there's a better way to deal with things than to say "oh, i'm mad, so i'm not gonna treat you, and you can't do anything about it, so there!" so freaking childish. this shows how freaking weak doctors are.


and my way is bringing out the baseball bat and letting know I don't want to treat them. You must be a liberal-minded, idealistic fool who thinks everyone goes to a doc to get help and not to find an excuse to sue a doc.
 
MS3NavyFS2B said:
Guess what? That IM clinic in the Beverely Hills...no medicaid allowed.
How many poor people are there really in Beverely Hills?
 
MS3NavyFS2B said:
This is the type of crap that gives medical students a bad name.

You must be kidding. Of course physicians can choose who they treat. The only exception is the law that ER pts must be stabilized before transfer (so hope your insurance in up-to-snuff).

Guess what? If a patient doesn't show up >2 for appts. at many offices, then they get sent "discharge from practice letters" (saying something like after 30 days, all I can offer you is to transfer your records).

Guess what? There are plenty of OBs would will not take pts who will not take blood transfusions (like Jehovahs Witnesses) because the MDs feel it's too risky.

Guess what? That plastic surg clinic on the Upper East Side...cash only.

Guess what? I've seen surgeons decline to participate in the care of pts who were rude to them.

Guess what? That IM clinic in the Beverely Hills...no medicaid allowed.

THINK MAN!

not treating patients because they don't have insurance is one thing.

not treating patients because they're democrat, of a minority, or they don't look hot is something else entirely.

(and who gives a $hit whether YOU want to treat her or not? mrs. edwards went to MGH and got treated by the best)
 
medstudent2005 said:
you know, yeah, i must be an "idiot" med student for thinking there must be a better way of dealing with our current trouble than putting someone's life in danger ! If everyone refused to treat a particular patient, well, it's ok in your view to let them suffer the consequences, because, oh golly-gee willekers, this is a BUSINESS, not some humanitarian sh+t. Yeah, i'm sure you mentioned all of this when you were interviewing. What a dumba$$ bunch of ppl.
Ever heard of a thing called countertransference? And it is not really limited to psychiatry. How're you going to treat someone if you are scared to death about lawsuit and/or other things? That'll be a disservice to the pt. Also it is important to set up your comfort level before you practice medicine. If you feel OK to treat anyone who walks thru your office door you are more than welcome to do so, but don't expect others to do so . People make choices about their life all the time and if it's not tallying w/ yours, instead of getting enraged, try to understand other's viewpt. It'll make you a better doc, kid.
 
medstudent2005 said:
you know, yeah, i must be an "idiot" med student for thinking there must be a better way of dealing with our current trouble than putting someone's life in danger ! If everyone refused to treat a particular patient, well, it's ok in your view to let them suffer the consequences, because, oh golly-gee willekers, this is a BUSINESS, not some humanitarian sh+t. Yeah, i'm sure you mentioned all of this when you were interviewing. What a dumba$$ bunch of ppl.

Now here's a bright one!

Actually, I didn't have to kiss a$$ while interviewing like some only marginally qualified, lower-IQ types. Medical school is a graduate, professional school of the biomedical and clinical sciences; if you want to join the monastery, then I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have you.

Moreover, if you want to practice medicine for free, then that's great you altruistist...so long as you don't take Medicare or Medicaid; otherwise you would be de-frauding the government by not charging all patients equally, since the reimbursement rate of Medicare and Medicaid is a function of your standard rate.

Anyway...this will be all over your head, and I'm probably wasting my keystrokes.
 
Top