Surgeon sued for giving anesthetized patient temporary tattoo

[Philosophia]

Surgeon sued for giving anesthetized patient temporary tattoo

In a lawsuit filed yesterday, a Camden County woman accused her orthopedic surgeon of "rubbing a temporary tattoo of a red rose" on her belly while she was under anesthesia.

The patient discovered the tattoo below the panty line the next morning, when her husband was helping her get dressed to go home after the operation for a herniated disc, her attorney, Gregg A. Shivers, said in a phone interview yesterday.

From here (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20080716_Surgeon_sued_for_giving_anesthetized_patient_temporary_tattoo.html?loc=interstitialskip).

:wtf:

[aranarose]

You know what? People need to get over themselves! How the **** does a temporary tattoo cause any sort of emotional distress?

[evergreen]

When I first read this I thought it said red "nose". Hahahaha. It's really not that big a deal... it's only temporary.

"In a highly publicized case in 1999, a doctor in New York City went further by carving his initials into a patient's abdomen after delivering her baby by Caesarean section."

That I would be pissed about.

[Moonlight's Daughter]

It could be because of where it was placed: on her belly just below the panty line. That would make me uncomforatble. If it was on my back near where the incision was, not so much.

[TuathaSidhe]

I would be furious.

This man touched her below the panty line without her premission for something other than what they agreed on. On top of that, he did it AFTER the fact.

:thumbsdow

[Jezibaba]

Yeah, below the panty line is not a good area for doctors to go (or anyone for that matter) if the patient is under and hasn't given permission. She might have thought that he was doing something else down there :2G: It's not like he did it on her arm, which would have been nice.

[tallwoman.9169]

And there were no witnesses. So how do we, or she know a temp tat is all he did? In general, I feel our society is too litigious, but this certainly seems to warrant action.

[Trithemius]

You know what? People need to get over themselves! How the **** does a temporary tattoo cause any sort of emotional distress?

It's an issue of a surgeon taking liberties with a patient who was in no condition to give consent. You don't think that's a big deal?

It's also a serious breach of doctor-patient trust.

[Serendipity]

It could be because of where it was placed: on her belly just below the panty line. That would make me uncomforatble. If it was on my back near where the incision was, not so much.

Yep, that ^^

[aluokaloo]

It's an issue of a surgeon taking liberties with a patient who was in no condition to give consent. You don't think that's a big deal?

It's also a serious breach of doctor-patient trust.

agreed. it mauy have been temporary but those hands were roamin where they shouldn't have been. it'd be the same as someone touching me while i was dead asleep. breach of personal space.

[mermaid]

If it were on my back or somewhere not so private, I might think it was kinda cute, but below the panty line??? No way. :noway:

[Wolf O Volos]

I really really hate to break this news to people, but seeing as I Work in surgery, I think it is kind of like a responsibility to comment here...

the matter of being "touched" in places that you don't consent to... Folks, I have to tell you, you cannot position a patient for back surgery without hands being in places you would not really like to have them. There is NO OTHER way to position a patient.

In a case such as this, the patient would have been put to sleep, under anesthesia, while still laying on their back, on the gurney used to transport them into the room. There is no way to safely intubate a patient when they are lying on their stomach. And in the case of a surgey such as this, the patient would definately be put under general anesthetic, and require intubation.

Once under a general anesthetic, the body is basicly paralysed. there is no rigidity. And in order for the patient to be placed on the operating room table, and into a special frame designed to arch the back, and make the spinal column more accessible, the patient would have to be basically barrel rolled over, with the operating room team there to do the job. Upwards to four people are REQUIRED to do this manuver safely. If JUST one person was to attempt this, then the chances of the patient ending up on the operating room floor would be astronomically BAD. So four sets of hands, at least, upon the patient to get them positioned properly...

Once positioned, in the belly down prone position, the nurse, and usually the doctor HAVE to manipulate things such as the breasts, and the hips. Not because it is innapropriate, but because if you have never seen what a pressure ulcer, or a dead area upon your body looks like, you would be rather happy to have not seen it. When asleep under anesthesia, the body cannot position itself to adjust to spots that are under uncomfortable pressure... imagine if you will falling asleep so deep, that you dont realize your arm is in a funny position, and when you wake up, you have that 'dead arm' feeling for a while. Without proper positioning and assuring all nerve centers, and excessive flesh ( i.e. breasts ) are not positioned properly, that feeling of a "dead arm" could be PERMANANT. Dead breast anyone? Having it turn black and fall off of your body because a doctor or nurse was afraid you would be offended by it being touched? There is "innapropriate" and there is doing what is in the best interest of the patient.

Also bear in mind, that you can NOT be clothed for most of the time you are in surgery. Yes, you have the handy dandy open backed gown... but even those are typical to be taken off at some point once you are asleep. There are blood pressure lines, EKG leads, Grounding pads, and a myriad of other things that are REQUIRED by the surgical team to be placed upon a patients body, to ensure that every possible method of monitring the patient's safety and physical health can be maintained during the time they are under general anesthesia. Modesty and your personal feelings of someone looking at you, are kind of lost in this process. While it DOES strike some as "Ohmigods Terrible" I can assure you that not a single person who works in the operating room is gawking. This is seriously an everyday, normal occurance, and there isnt a single one of us who works in an operating room who hasn't really gone numb to it. You aren't "a hot chick, a buff guy, or a fat flabby person on a nude beach"... you are a patient, and are treated with the utmost respect as such.

So... the case of this lady and the silly tattoo... Yes, I agree that the doctor was not exactly brilliant for placing a temporary tattoo on his patient. Period. While it was done at an attempt for good cheer, and probably with no ill intent whatsoever... and to be honest, I would suspect that it was done in recovery room, with the patient actually AWAKE and giddy when it happened. The anesthesia that is most commonly used has a very strong amnesia effect. There are patients who are compltely awake for a majority of a minor procedure, who have NO recollection at all of the surgery. The reasoning: If things HURT, and I would assume having a scalpel pulled acrossed your sensitive skin DOES hurt... you really do not WANT to remember that pain. Anyways... the amnesia effecting drugs have a effective time frame of about 30 minutes PRIOR to entering the operating room, and up to an hour after. Most patients will say that they dont remember going to the O.R. and "woke up in recovery room. When in fact, most patients come into the OR awake, and leave the OR awake as well. In order for a patient to be cleared to leave the OR, they are awakened from anesthesia, and asked to move limbs, and answer a few short questions to ensure that they have suffered no ill effects from being under.

My guess here, is that seeing as the doctor obviously does a large number of surgeries, he also has the "its a patient, and not some lady to be picked up at the bar" sort of mentality. Also would assume that when he placed the tattoo, it was after she had woken up... and even though it IS amnesia effecting drug, the patient is VERY much awake... and did so to lift her spirits after the long surgery. The placement... Folks... there is NO way to know what her pantieline really is at that point, because there would BE no panties. A hospital gown would have been placed back on the patient before leaving the operating room, and the bedsheets and blankets... but no street clothes. Imagine having some person bringing in their street clothes to a sterile environment, with whatever manner of bacteria and whatnot that COULD be on them... So, the doc, with an awake patient, pulls up the covers slightly, doesnt expose her to the rest of the staff in the recovery room to preserve her modesty, and light heartedly places a temp tattoo of a rose ( which I would also assume SHE picked... ) on her, and finishes up her chart.

Folks are ALWAYS so ready to assume the worst. Oh gods, she had a tattoo... Oh no! He must have been a PERVO... People, that is SO rare, and ridiculously DIFFICULT to get away with in a hospital environment. ... With the ammount of staff and nurses, assistants, techs, and other people involved in the care of the patient... if this doctor HAD done something innapropriate, SOMEONE would have pulled the cords, and blown whistles on the guy. One of the FIRST things we are taught as medical professionals, is patient advocacy. So, unless one of the nurses came forward, and said "yeah, the guy is a perv" then I would feel VERY secure in thinking that he was benign in this tattoo placement.

Just the 2c from a medical professional, and a little information that a number of people probably never took the time to consider. ;)

[Jezibaba]

While I understand the need to move patients around in surgery, I don't understand first of all-why he chose to put the tattoo in a personal area (instead of say, her arm), and secondly-if the patient did consent to it and even chose the area, and did say it was ok, and he has done so many surgeries, shouldn't he have known better than to do that when there was a chance she wouldn't remember and freak out? It sounds to me like he didn't really think it through.

[Wolf O Volos]

While I understand the need to move patients around in surgery, I don't understand first of all-why he chose to put the tattoo in a personal area (instead of say, her arm), and secondly-if the patient did consent to it and even chose the area, and did say it was ok, and he has done so many surgeries, shouldn't he have known better than to do that when there was a chance she wouldn't remember and freak out? It sounds to me like he didn't really think it through.

The sad truth is that working in a surgical environment for a long period of years tends to desensitise the people who see this sort of thing on an every single day basis.

Like I was attempting to explain, once you are in the OR, you are viewed as a Patient, first and foremost. It is a disasociative mechanism that allows us to do things, such as the positioning of a patient, without it being innappropriate, or non-professionally based. We all view the patient as "this could be YOUR mother/sister/child/etc" and while we respect the patient as a person, and as someone's family member, we dissasociate in order to provide the best possible care without having the awkward "ohmigod the patient is naked" thing happening.

For instance, if you were to come in to the Operating room to have a breast reduction, it is assumed you understand the doctor and the surgical staff WILL have to view your breasts, and will have to place their hands upon them in order to succesfully perform the surgery. Nobody is copping a feel. Nobody even really THINKS like that. It is strictly professional, and we do what must be done in order for the best outcome for the patient.

So in his mind, I ASSUME ( as I do not know this particular surgeon, nor what was Actually going through his head ) that he was just doing something routine in his mind. After having the patient on the operating room table for hours, and having been subject to having to dissasociate himself from seeing her nude on the table, he may not have been thinking "Oh yeah... that's going to freak her out"... He probably saw her smiling, glad the surgery was a success, and was not really yanking all of her bedcoverings off to make sure the placement was appropriate.

Also bear in mind that in the recovery room, many of the same leads, monitors, and devices are hooked up to monitor a patient. Something as simple to you as "placing it on her arm" may not have been feasable at that point, as she would have blood pressure cuff and leads in the way.

I would tend to think that the scenario played out that he lifted her bedclothes in as minimal a way as possible, as to actually PRESERVE her modesty, and put it near to where he thought it would be ok. I imagine that tattoos on women are actually Fancied in the hip area, yes? If they were kidding around, and thought it would be funny for her to go home and tell her husband, "Look, I got a tattoo while I as in surgery" she may have actually ASKED him to place it in an area that would be normal, and cute for a tattoo to be.

And the amnesia effect can not really be totally judged. Every patient metabolises the drug at a different rate. She may have been acting perfectly normal, and seemed completely with it at the time of this event taking place, and the doc, while not exactly brilliant for doing this in the first place, would be none the wiser that she would not recall the interaction. This is also why there are Written orders as well as the doctor's verbal orders given to the post surgical patients, just in case they were not totally with it yet, when the doctor tells them how to care for themselves post op.

All of this is really just speculation on my part, to be fair. I can only talk about what I KNOW from working in the environment for every day, for over 15 years. And I assure you, with the sue happy world we live in, and with the number of people that are involved in in the care of a patient having a procedure of this magnitude, there would really be NO way a doctor could do something innapropriate without someone SEEING it. And I could almost nearly GUARANTEE that if anyone saw a doctor pulling something viewed as innapropriate on a patient, it wouldnt have been the patient making the first move to speak to a lawyer. It would be a nurse, contacting the patient advocacy group.

*nods*

[Jezibaba]

If people saw it, like the nurse, the woman will have no way of winning, and yes it is a sue happy world which is sad and ridiculous. If he did do anything wrong I'm sure that'll surface too.

[Wolf O Volos]

Honestly, I would say it was bad judgement on the doctors part. With the environment being what it is, to do anything that a patient could see as questionable is not the wisest thing he could have done.

It just goes to show though, that there are a lot of people who really do not have a good idea of what actually happens in the surgical theater. The outrage, and the accusations that start flying the moment something like this hits the papers, just goes to show that people aren't really capable of "seeing things from a different point of view" and are quick to assume the worst. It also is one of those cases, that will more than likely be swept under the rugs by the malpractice insurance companies. She will get a settlement under the table, to hush the bad publicity, and we never will KNOW for sure what exactly happened.

I still stand by the professionalism of the nurses and other staff. I know that there arent too many people who take on a profession in patient care who DONT care about the patients, and would be the first to put a stop to anything seen as "innapropriate" or that went to a point of this doctor getting touchy feely in a way that was totally unprofessional. Just the fact that in the report, there were no nurses or techs, or recovery room / OR staff making statements... he must not have done anything that set off warning flags.

And trust me... at least with the people I have personally worked with, that kind of crap would NEVER fly. Being the patients' advocate is a job we all take VERY seriously.

[Artiste-LiLi]

I'm with Monsieur Wolf here.....I worked close to 20 years in the O.R. and I have been a patient there a few times as well. "Marks" are placed upon patients for many reasons: potential donor site, potential pressure points to watch for, "placement needs" (making sure a nipple stays where a nipple should and not go off to one side or another for example) and numerous other reasons. I've even had a few surgeries and marks myself and placed a few marks (as a joke) for my surgeons (such as drawing a dotted line and writing "cut here" on future incision sites or leaving them post-it notes with instructions near operative sites) as well. Patients are, in most cases, completely NAKED in the operating room so we have no way of knowing where pantylines would be (unless you are extremely well tanned and then we might know), nor do we really care, panty line placement is the LEAST of our concerns. That comment, "nor do we really care", does not mean we don't care about our patients....we do...very much. We are taught as surgical/medical professionals "Patient First" in ALL things, meaning that the patient and their well being is ALWAYS first and foremost in our minds....we ARE the patient advocate in the O.R.; each and every one of us. I feel comfortable in saying that if any ONE PERSON in that O.R. felt the surgeon was doing anything "wrong" or "inappropriate", that person..that surgical/medical professional would have been the FIRST to stand up and say "Do you think that is a good idea?" or "I'm not sure that's a good thing" or "No, that's wrong, I will not participate" (been there done those) OR they would have had the surgeon ON REPORT faster than the patient could have gotten to PACU (recovery). I know....I've done it..stood toe to toe with a pissed off surgeon and told them quite emphatically "NO, you WON'T". We care for the patient, we protect the patient.

I have read the article, I've read the responses here.........my thoughts: I think this was done in the nature of "fun and silly", to cheer the patient and things along that line.....I think it was SOP (standard operating procedure [no pun intended]) for this particular surgeon.....I think the surgeon, perhaps, didn't make a wise choice *in regards to this particular patient*. Though I must question how it came about that the surgeon selected that specific tattoo for that specific woman and that specific placement of the tattoo....my "little voice" says it was "agreed upon beforehand". I suspect that the prime reason the woman is so "mortally upset" is because her husband said "WTF is THAT???!!!" and had a hissy over the tattoo and tattoo placement (I've seen stuff like this before regarding insicisons and markers). I also question how on earth she "didn't know it was there PRIOR to her getting dressed to leave the hospital the NEXT DAY". Had this woman not been up to go to the bathroom? Seeing as how she went home the next morning post op (it was obviously a "day surgery" since she had the surgery then went home next morning....in and out in 23 hours or less! god bless our insurance systems...NOT) I can not believe that she had not WALKED to the bathroom...the nurses are required to get patients up and on their feet ASAP when they are a "day op". Had she not shifted around in the bed and had to have repositioned blankets by herself or another? And numerous other questions come to my mind....all of which would bring about circumstances of her "finding" the tattoo well before getting dressed for going home the next morning. I do not know, nor have I ever worked with, a single surgeon who would do something like this without patient knowledge and AGREEMENT/CONSENT prior to surgery...I can't even imagine a surgeon doing this without patient knowledge and agreement prior to surgery...........ESPECIALLY since all of us in the OR are constantly aware of what a litiginous(sp) society we live in. Shoot, most of us are worried we'll "breathe wrong" around a patient and be sued. Many years ago, I was named in a suit that was almost as frivilous (yes frivilous) as this one...so I'm kind of familiar with stuff like this.

I'm sorry but I think there is a great deal more to this story than what is being told by this lady and in this specific article. It just has that "ring" and "feel" to it. It makes my "O.R. nursey senses" send up red flags all over the place.

[Artiste-LiLi]

Plus, I just can't believe that NO ONE else saw this happen. In Pre-Op/Holding, OR and PACU...there are always a bunch of people around and they are almost constantly working with the patients. Most doctors won't even approach a sedated patient unless someone is within "line of sight" and can see the docs actions or the doc has someone accompany him/her to the patient bedside.

No, there's more to this than what is being told publically.

[Artiste-LiLi]

I've even had a few surgeries and marks myself and placed a few marks (as a joke) for my surgeons (such as drawing a dotted line and writing "cut here" on future incision sites or leaving them post-it notes with instructions near operative sites) as well.


Allow me to clairify this statement....

The marks and post-it notes....were what I put upon MYSELF, my own body, for MY surgeons regarding surgeries I was having performed upon ME...............NOT on patients!

I've also had "surgical markers" placed upon me by my surgeons. These marks all pertained to the surgery they were about to perform upon me and were necessary parts of the procedure about to take place.

[Nitefalle]

That's pretty cool - I wish my surgeons had done that for me.

[Artiste-LiLi]

That's pretty cool - I wish my surgeons had done that for me.

Oh I wouldn't have cared one bit if any of my surgeons put on temp. tatts, wrote "bawdy" notes or drew smilie faces all over me!:lol: I knew all of them well and worked with them all on a regular basis (some daily); so they all knew my warped sense of humor well and knew I wouldn't have gotten upset with them. None of them were surprised by my hijinx either..they fully expected no less from me and would have been disappointed if I hadn't done some silly something.

Actually, they could have put REAL tatts on me......we did have a tattoo "gun" and inks..........of course..all our inks were flesh tones and there's no fun in that!!!!!!:lol:

[Aoibheal]

Could be fun if they use a flesh tone unlike your own :lol:

[Nitefalle]

You should check yourself over with a UV light - maybe they did it with invisible ink!

[Artiste-LiLi]

You should check yourself over with a UV light - maybe they did it with invisible ink!


Nah....twas done in the days that were well before the days of "invisible ink tattoos"....though....I would think it quite funny if I found one. :hehehehe:

[Dr. K]

With respect to what everyone said I have to agree with Wolfie, I too worked in a hospital for many years and never once looked as patients as anything more than just people who needed help, they were never cute,hot, ugly or weird, they were just patients. And I have seen doctors do all sorts of things to try to cheer people up who were hurt or sick. I doubt that he in any way went anything inappropriate by the tattoo. And if the surgery was in all other regards a success she should be happy.

[Carri]

I really really hate to break this news to people, but seeing as I Work in surgery, I think it is kind of like a responsibility to comment here...

the matter of being "touched" in places that you don't consent to... Folks, I have to tell you, you cannot position a patient for back surgery without hands being in places you would not really like to have them. There is NO OTHER way to position a patient.

In a case such as this, the patient would have been put to sleep, under anesthesia, while still laying on their back, on the gurney used to transport them into the room. There is no way to safely intubate a patient when they are lying on their stomach. And in the case of a surgey such as this, the patient would definately be put under general anesthetic, and require intubation.

Once under a general anesthetic, the body is basicly paralysed. there is no rigidity. And in order for the patient to be placed on the operating room table, and into a special frame designed to arch the back, and make the spinal column more accessible, the patient would have to be basically barrel rolled over, with the operating room team there to do the job. Upwards to four people are REQUIRED to do this manuver safely. If JUST one person was to attempt this, then the chances of the patient ending up on the operating room floor would be astronomically BAD. So four sets of hands, at least, upon the patient to get them positioned properly...

Once positioned, in the belly down prone position, the nurse, and usually the doctor HAVE to manipulate things such as the breasts, and the hips. Not because it is innapropriate, but because if you have never seen what a pressure ulcer, or a dead area upon your body looks like, you would be rather happy to have not seen it. When asleep under anesthesia, the body cannot position itself to adjust to spots that are under uncomfortable pressure... imagine if you will falling asleep so deep, that you dont realize your arm is in a funny position, and when you wake up, you have that 'dead arm' feeling for a while. Without proper positioning and assuring all nerve centers, and excessive flesh ( i.e. breasts ) are not positioned properly, that feeling of a "dead arm" could be PERMANANT. Dead breast anyone? Having it turn black and fall off of your body because a doctor or nurse was afraid you would be offended by it being touched? There is "innapropriate" and there is doing what is in the best interest of the patient.

Also bear in mind, that you can NOT be clothed for most of the time you are in surgery. Yes, you have the handy dandy open backed gown... but even those are typical to be taken off at some point once you are asleep. There are blood pressure lines, EKG leads, Grounding pads, and a myriad of other things that are REQUIRED by the surgical team to be placed upon a patients body, to ensure that every possible method of monitring the patient's safety and physical health can be maintained during the time they are under general anesthesia. Modesty and your personal feelings of someone looking at you, are kind of lost in this process. While it DOES strike some as "Ohmigods Terrible" I can assure you that not a single person who works in the operating room is gawking. This is seriously an everyday, normal occurance, and there isnt a single one of us who works in an operating room who hasn't really gone numb to it. You aren't "a hot chick, a buff guy, or a fat flabby person on a nude beach"... you are a patient, and are treated with the utmost respect as such.

So... the case of this lady and the silly tattoo... Yes, I agree that the doctor was not exactly brilliant for placing a temporary tattoo on his patient. Period. While it was done at an attempt for good cheer, and probably with no ill intent whatsoever... and to be honest, I would suspect that it was done in recovery room, with the patient actually AWAKE and giddy when it happened. The anesthesia that is most commonly used has a very strong amnesia effect. There are patients who are compltely awake for a majority of a minor procedure, who have NO recollection at all of the surgery. The reasoning: If things HURT, and I would assume having a scalpel pulled acrossed your sensitive skin DOES hurt... you really do not WANT to remember that pain. Anyways... the amnesia effecting drugs have a effective time frame of about 30 minutes PRIOR to entering the operating room, and up to an hour after. Most patients will say that they dont remember going to the O.R. and "woke up in recovery room. When in fact, most patients come into the OR awake, and leave the OR awake as well. In order for a patient to be cleared to leave the OR, they are awakened from anesthesia, and asked to move limbs, and answer a few short questions to ensure that they have suffered no ill effects from being under.

My guess here, is that seeing as the doctor obviously does a large number of surgeries, he also has the "its a patient, and not some lady to be picked up at the bar" sort of mentality. Also would assume that when he placed the tattoo, it was after she had woken up... and even though it IS amnesia effecting drug, the patient is VERY much awake... and did so to lift her spirits after the long surgery. The placement... Folks... there is NO way to know what her pantieline really is at that point, because there would BE no panties. A hospital gown would have been placed back on the patient before leaving the operating room, and the bedsheets and blankets... but no street clothes. Imagine having some person bringing in their street clothes to a sterile environment, with whatever manner of bacteria and whatnot that COULD be on them... So, the doc, with an awake patient, pulls up the covers slightly, doesnt expose her to the rest of the staff in the recovery room to preserve her modesty, and light heartedly places a temp tattoo of a rose ( which I would also assume SHE picked... ) on her, and finishes up her chart.

Folks are ALWAYS so ready to assume the worst. Oh gods, she had a tattoo... Oh no! He must have been a PERVO... People, that is SO rare, and ridiculously DIFFICULT to get away with in a hospital environment. ... With the ammount of staff and nurses, assistants, techs, and other people involved in the care of the patient... if this doctor HAD done something innapropriate, SOMEONE would have pulled the cords, and blown whistles on the guy. One of the FIRST things we are taught as medical professionals, is patient advocacy. So, unless one of the nurses came forward, and said "yeah, the guy is a perv" then I would feel VERY secure in thinking that he was benign in this tattoo placement.

Just the 2c from a medical professional, and a little information that a number of people probably never took the time to consider. ;)

Thanks for sharing the whole process. And thanks for including the TMI info no one ever talks about. I've wondered about what it would be like if I ever would need surgery. I feel better knowing the process reguardless of the tattoo issue. I think you should start a thread just to share the things the dr. probably won't talk about but you would feel better knowing. When I had my first child I was almost beside myself when the lamaze video of birth showed the woman in the hospital completely naked for the birth. I wanted to change my mind about the whole thing. I was so relieved at the next class when someone asked the nurse teaching the class if she could please wear clothes during the birth. You could probably ease alot of people's minds if they could ask Q's and hear the truth.

BTW first thing that crossed my mind when I read the story was that I bet the Dr. teased his patient at some point about them coming out of surgery with a tatoo.

[Carri]

Allow me to clairify this statement....

The marks and post-it notes....were what I put upon MYSELF, my own body, for MY surgeons regarding surgeries I was having performed upon ME...............NOT on patients!

I've also had "surgical markers" placed upon me by my surgeons. These marks all pertained to the surgery they were about to perform upon me and were necessary parts of the procedure about to take place.


Thank you for clarifying! The way I read that made me feel that if I had "cut here" or post it notes placed on my body or my families body during a surgery for the drs amusement you all would be reading about my lawsuit in the papers.

[Artiste-LiLi]

Thank you for clarifying! The way I read that made me feel that if I had "cut here" or post it notes placed on my body or my families body during a surgery for the drs amusement you all would be reading about my lawsuit in the papers.


I had an extremely good working relationship with my surgeons. They knew I had a whacky sense of humor and they loved me for it....but they loved me more because they knew how much I cared about my patients and about my patients having the best surgical experience and outcome possible. My docs knew I would always bust my azz for my patients and for my docs. The other surgical nurses used to tease me and the docs by saying that I spoiled the docs by being so OCD about the cases. I was the surgical nurse that the docs requested when they had to have surgery on themselves or their family members. I was also the one my friends requested for their surgeries. I don't brag on myself often...but I will say this...I was one helluva surgical nurse.

Surgery is not a place that has a "job grey area"....it isn't a place where you can ask someone: "Hey, how's the job" and the person responds with something along the lines of: "Oh you know, it pays the bills"....You either love surgery or get out. I've always found that people who work in surgery are very dedicated to what they do and the care of their patients. This is not to say that people who work in other areas of hospitals aren't.......I have just found through my 20ish years of experience, that surgical people are a "breed apart". I think anyone who goes into the "specialty" areas of the hospital are like that..be it ER, ICU, PACU, CCU, CCCU, PICU/PCCU/PCCCU ("step down" units to the ICU et al), paramedics, cardiac cath labs and so many more. The one place I had the misfortune to see people who were/are (when I worked and as a patient myself and as recently as this year with my mother as a patient)...shall we say..."less than" 'a breed apart' was on the floors (general nursing, med/surg nursing, geriatric nursing and others). Some floor nurses are excellent...some don't give a flying rats heiney..and some are only there to try to snag a doctor.

[Artiste-LiLi]

With respect to what everyone said I have to agree with Wolfie, I too worked in a hospital for many years and never once looked as patients as anything more than just people who needed help, they were never cute,hot, ugly or weird, they were just patients. And I have seen doctors do all sorts of things to try to cheer people up who were hurt or sick. I doubt that he in any way went anything inappropriate by the tattoo. And if the surgery was in all other regards a success she should be happy.



:qft: Dear Dr. K :qft:



I didn't know you worked in the medical field! Coolies!

:fpraise: to another of the wonderful people who is "medical peoples".

[Dr. K]

Worked... actually. I became a stay at home mother this last October. Both of my girls love having me around more, but I miss working a little bit, so much cool stuff happened.

[aranarose]

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thought it was funny, and that the patient was grossly overreacting!

If I woke up from surgery with a temp tattoo, I would laugh my ass off. Mainly because I've got real tattoos....

:lol:

I keep thinking that there is no way that anesthesiologist was ever alone with her to do something even remotely inappropriate. From what I know of surgery (and a large portion of my husband's family is in the medical field from EMTs and paramedics, to ER techs, nurses, doctors, etc...) the anesthesiologist does not monitor the patient alone, and will have a nurse with him/her while putting the patient under, for the simple fact that anesthesia is no joke, and people do react badly to it, quickly becoming an emergent situation.