Couple sue hospital for failed organ donation

They must be kiddning

"It was a huge blow to her I had another person's kidney in me", he said.

Eh....thats weird.

It is claimed she became depressed and suffered grief for the loss of an organ.

That's just funny.

Hopefully they lose and enormous costs are awarded against these freaks.

I was hoping they were living in Stillorgan...would have just made that story.

Swamp3 wrote:

I was hoping they were living in Stillorgan...would have just made that story.

Christ, I just love Irish humor.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, solicitors have to maximize revenue and profits.
They have now discovered that anything upsetting you see or that happens to you HAS to be the fault of someone and that means money.
Accidents, failed transplants, someone says something mean about you, you know, what we used to call life, all that psychological hurt translates into cold, hard cash.
Seen an accident, been refused service at the pub, didn't get that job, tinder date didn't jump into bed with you, straw broke when trying to get it into the juice carton, upsetting news on the telly, it doesn't matter.
What matters is that you are upset. And someone is going to pay for it.
Ireland has finally surpassed America in parasitic, money-grabbing lawsuits and I would guess is now number one by a long shot.

Very well put and no doubt you are absolutely right about this.

I'm thinking of suing the maker of my nail cutter because everytime I use it I feel a little part of me is lost forever.

alchemist33 wrote: »

Rather than being grateful for the new life he's got, they attempt to parasitise on the health service.

I don't know if it's an attempt specifically to parasite off the health service, but rather they're taking the case against the hospital as no explanation appears to have been provided for why his wife's donated kidney failed, making a second operation necessary -

Four years on, the couple remain at a loss to know exactly why the first transplant failed, Mr Maher said.

It was their case it should not have failed as there were no contra-indications.

Counsel said Mr Ryan underwent two unnecessary procedures and the case will examine the positioning of the kidney in him.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

There is very often no reason or explanation why a transplant fails . I don't know why these people would think they would be any different

There's always a reason why a transplant fails, the fact that the hospital suggested it could be for any reason suggests that they either don't have an explanation, or they aren't willing to give one. I can understand why the couple in question would find that answer unsatisfactory.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Well yes but its often not known or its the patients own body rejected it .
I mean seriously the man got a kidney and he is well and yet still she is not satisfied and has to sue someone because she was upset . Grant me patience

Well yeah I can understand that they are grateful that the man is alive, but I don't think that's the point. The point of the couple suing the hospital has more to do with highlighting the fact that they were never given an explanation as to why the kidney failed and therefore a second operation was necessary.

It's simply not good enough on the hospitals part to effectively throw up their hands and say "Tough titty, we dunno, he's alive isn't he?" It's a fairly poor standard of medical care when the hospital is not held accountable for their actions on the basis that the standard is "Well, we dunno what happened the first time, but it all worked out in the end".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well yeah I can understand that they are grateful that the man is alive, but I don't think that's the point. The point of the couple suing the hospital has more to do with highlighting the fact that they were never given an explanation as to why the kidney failed and therefore a second operation was necessary.

It's simply not good enough on the hospitals part to effectively throw up their hands and say "Tough titty, we dunno, he's alive isn't he?" It's a fairly poor standard of medical care when the hospital is not held accountable for their actions on the basis that the standard is "Well, we dunno what happened the first time, but it all worked out in the end".

We have no idea what the hospital said so I won't speculate how they said it or indeed make up how they might have

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Because **** happens. When I had my appendix removed, I was informed that most of the time, this operation works fine. But sometimes it doesn’t. That’s the risks associated with having someone cut your body open.

Her ridiculous excuse of grieving over a lost organ just shows her up for the pathetic excuse of a human she really is.

Maybe the hospital should counter sue for her providing a sub standard product.

I'll admit that the grieving over a lost organ stuff is just down right bizarre, but that's where we are in society now - people grieving for the most bizarre reasons. That's not really what I take issue with though.

What I take issue with is the hospitals lack of accountability. Just because you would say shìt happens doesn't mean the hospital should be allowed to be held to the same low standard of not having to investigate why the procedure failed in the first place, to prevent the same event from occurring again to someone else.

It's the lack of accountability here is the issue, the PTSD experienced by his wife is likely exacerbated by the lack of an explanation from the hospital in question, hence why I could understand why they might want to take a case against the hospital in order to get an explanation as to why the first procedure failed and it was necessary for the man to undergo a second procedure with no explanation as to why the first one failed in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Says right there in the article:


He never got an explanation after the failed transplant, there was a meeting, and they were told it could be a number of things, he said.

Still not going to make up how it was said . And failed transplant could indeed be a number of things

What a waste of court time. All living donors are required to go through a counseling process to make sure they understand the risks involved in the transplant process. That includes how to cope if the transplant isn’t successful. While I understand her disappointment, she cannot claim she didn’t know that failure was a possibility.

I have been in the transplant unit in Beaumont as a potential donor and from the first meeting they were very clear that there are no guarantees of success.

http://www.beaumont.ie/kidneycentre-becomingadonor-livingdonation

Fiery mutant wrote: »

This is not like replacing a faulty component in your car. You see a broken piece and say ‘yeah, see, it’s ****ed’.

As much as we know about the human body, there is still so much we don’t know. It mentions a sizing issue, which could have meant anything. There is a myriad of reasons, and maybe they just don’t know.

Yes I know all that, I'm aware of how transplants work and I'm fairly well aware of the risks involved. That's not the issue, nor is the issue that the second transplant attempt was successful. The issue is that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the first attempt was obviously unsuccessful.

I'm aware that medicine isn't an exact science and is full of trial and error, but how is anyone supposed to learn anything from just accepting the excuse that the hospital just doesn't know why the transplant failed the first time. I don't think it's beyond reasonable expectations that they should be expected to determine the exact cause of the initial failure before a second attempt was made.

But no matter how much you read this article, the only thing that sticks is:

‘It is claimed she became depressed and suffered grief for the loss of an organ.’

This is just bat**** crazy talk.

Yep, that much I definitely agree with, that is crazy talk, and shouldn't be entertained, but I can understand the reasons why it is entertained, as facepalm inducing and all as it is!

They should give it back to her, with some fava beans and a nice...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes I know all that, I'm aware of how transplants work and I'm fairly well aware of the risks involved. That's not the issue, nor is the issue that the second transplant attempt was successful. The issue is that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the first attempt was obviously unsuccessful.

Your quote above is facepalm inducing by itself. If you knew how transplants worked, you'd understand that occasionally they fail for no known reason. Microischemia. Undetectable graft vs host disease. Thromboemboli.

So, you're suggesting that the medical team should have turned down the second kidney whilst they get to the bottom of why the first one failed? The renal transplant waiting list is quite long - so are you going to pass up on the second kidney or not?

_Dara_ wrote: »

PTSD is the new whiplash. :mad:

I have only this to say .There is Vicky Phelan and then there is is this woman who misses her kidney despite having donated it to her husband and now feels hard done by .Grant me patience .

laserlad2010 wrote: »

Your quote above is facepalm inducing by itself. If you knew how transplants worked, you'd understand that occasionally they fail for no known reason. Microischemia. Undetectable graft vs host disease. Thromboemboli.

So, you're suggesting that the medical team should have turned down the second kidney whilst they get to the bottom of why the first one failed? The renal transplant waiting list is quite long - so are you going to pass up on the second kidney or not?

What exactly is facepalm inducing about suggesting that offering the answer that they don't know why a transplant failed is an unsatisfactory answer? I do know that transplants fail for unknown reasons. The fact that they fail doesn't answer the question as to why the first transplant failed, requiring a second attempt, and obviously as you point out given the waiting list is as long as it is, and given the scarcity of readily available organs for transplant, as I said - it's not beyond reasonable to expect that the hospital would determine why the first transplant failed before making a second attempt, and hoping that this time it would be successful. It's not as though they have an unlimited supply of organs to keep going until they find one that isn't rejected or doesn't fail.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly is facepalm inducing about suggesting that offering the answer that they don't know why a transplant failed is an unsatisfactory answer? I do know that transplants fail for unknown reasons. The fact that they fail doesn't answer the question as to why the first transplant failed, requiring a second attempt, and obviously as you point out given the waiting list is as long as it is, and given the scarcity of readily available organs for transplant, as I said - it's not beyond reasonable to expect that the hospital would determine why the first transplant failed before making a second attempt, and hoping that this time it would be successful. It's not as though they have an unlimited supply of organs to keep going until they find one that isn't rejected or doesn't fail.

Do you honestly not understand that sometimes it cannot be determined why a transplanted organ failed ? It does fail , they know it can fail , the patient can reject it etc . Etc etc . Sometimes they simply cannot pinpoint a solid readon

Or do you mean it would be better that the donor should be told that ? Because the fact is they are told just that and will have most probably been told it numerous times .

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand that sometimes it cannot be determined why a transplanted organ failed ? It does fail , they know it can fail , the patient can reject it etc . Etc etc . Sometimes they simply cannot pinpoint a solid readon

Or do you mean it would be better that the donor should be told that ? Because the fact is they are told just that and will have most probably been told it numerous times .

This is what I'm suggesting shouldn't happen. I know they'll have been told numerous times that an organ can fail for any number of unspecified reasons, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that that excuse is simply unsatisfactory. Given what's at stake, "it happens, we dunno why", simply isn't good enough. That's all I'm saying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is what I'm suggesting shouldn't happen. I know they'll have been told numerous times that an organ can fail for any number of unspecified reasons, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that that excuse is simply unsatisfactory. Given what's at stake, "it happens, we dunno why", simply isn't good enough. That's all I'm saying.

But if the hospital can honestly not determine a reason why it failed? What then? Sometimes “it happens, we dunno why” is the only answer there is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well yeah I can understand that they are grateful that the man is alive, but I don't think that's the point. The point of the couple suing the hospital has more to do with highlighting the fact that they were never given an explanation as to why the kidney failed and therefore a second operation was necessary.

It's simply not good enough on the hospitals part to effectively throw up their hands and say "Tough titty, we dunno, he's alive isn't he?" It's a fairly poor standard of medical care when the hospital is not held accountable for their actions on the basis that the standard is "Well, we dunno what happened the first time, but it all worked out in the end".

You're taking the piss right?
They supposedly haven't given an explanation so this equals €€€ signs for them?