This is an interesting proposal…
Would patients undergoing surgery benefit from having a “black box” in the operating room?
A Wisconsin legislator said Wednesday she planned to introduce such a bill, one that would require that hospitals to offer patients the option of having their surgeries videotaped.
Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said such a measure would benefit both patients who are victims of medical malpractice and doctors who want to defend themselves.
“Patient lives have been severely altered or lost in Wisconsin and in other states due to practices and actions in operating rooms and outpatient facilities,” Sinicki said. “Currently it is often impossible to find out exactly what happened during these procedures, since testimony from the attending medical staff is often the only source of information.”
Sinicki acknowledged that she knows of no other states that have such a law and that she would face an uphill fight in the Republican controlled Legislature.
The bill would require facilities that offer surgery to give patients the option of having their procedures audiovisually recorded. It would allow patients to sign advanced directives indicating they want all of their surgeries recorded or on a surgery-by-surgery basis.
It would be named after Julie Ayer Rubenzer, 38, who stopped breathing Sept. 25, 2003, while undergoing breast implant surgery at a doctor’s office in Florida.
Sounds neat but I think she should make a statistical case for it based on Wisconsin outcomes. This sounds like a well-intentioned law that would ultimately lead to even fatter legal bills, little resolution for wronged patients and dissaude good surgeons from practicing in Wisconsin.
Zach, thanks.
From your link, “In an interview, Michael End, a Milwaukee attorney who does malpractice cases, said the idea has merit. He said not all malpractice would be picked up on video, but it would be an additional piece of information.
He recalled a case he lost several years ago in which a juror actually told him after the trial that a video recording would have helped his case.
“It would protect the doctor if the doctor was doing everything they should,” he said. “On the other hand, if the doctor did something that was patently incorrect, it would benefit the patient.”
End’s correct, the filming would protect good physicians who were doing things the right way.
Among the myriad of issues with the medical profession, one is that that the physicians (via the American Medical Association http://www.lcme.org/ ) decide how many “seats” each U.S. Medical school can graduate. Among a lot of problems that approach causes, that perpetuates the shortage of physicians which insures that physicians will be well paid. In surgery, that shortage translates into too few doctors performing too many surgeries. I think filming makes sense. All the other data in most surgeries is recorded, and (in 2015 when video/audio and networking/archiving of that data is everywhere) it’s worth the minor expense. In most cases (successful surgery) the video/audio can be destroyed.
OT, the GOP has so collapsed patient rights to the degree that it’s almost impossible for a patient to win against a really corrupt physician. Look in the yellow pages for attorneys who specialize in medical mal-practice. There aren’t any.
Shocking that a malpractice lawyer is for it, not. No other state has implemented so there’s no proof of concept. Sinicki made no empirical case for improved surgical methods and presented no failed alternative that would necessitate this extreme step. This push to record every aspect of our lives on the roads and streets, in our workplaces, and through our personal devices seems to me very authoritarian and ultimately another step towards ending our liberty and individualism. This seems as pro-authoritarian a law as requiring ultrasounds before abortion but because surgeons don’t vote for Democrats it’s ok? More proof Democrats in this state have truly lost their way.
So
Emma, sorry you haven’t checked the Yellow Pages for all the medical mal-practice attorneys that are NOT listed.
Sorry you ignored the data I provided about the shortage of physicians and the pressure that adds to physician’s jobs.
Are you against police officers wearing body cameras?
Surgery is a WORK place where the consumer is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated. The cost is negligible and as End pointed out, this protects physicians who do things the right way.
This has nothing to do with civil liberties, on which btw President Obama and both parties have been abysmal.
The only solution to physician shortages and so-called tort reform is the equivalent of body cam’s for physicians? So is the solution to subsidies, to just implement more subsidies? And to solve drug addiction, do we create more laws criminalizing drugs? Just checking.
Oh and yeah, I’m against police body cam’s and for community policing, demilitarizing the police, gun control, ending the war on drugs, improving community social services, increasing diversity in hiring police and improved police training. Humans are flawed and if recorded all the time, each one of us will be made unemployable by momentary lapses. I am a big believer in tackling core problems not creating an enitrely new set of problems.
Emma, what about airport security? Do you want to get rid of that too?
Quite the switcheroo of subject. I’ve got a straw man too – should African national parks stop using drones to find poachers?
Emma, how is airport security a “switcheroo”?
Here’s what you wrote above, “This push to record every aspect of our lives on the roads and streets, in our workplaces, and through our personal devices seems to me very authoritarian and ultimately another step towards ending our liberty and individualism. This seems as pro-authoritarian a law as requiring ultrasounds before abortion but because surgeons don’t vote for Democrats it’s ok? More proof Democrats in this state have truly lost their way.”
Is airport security “another step towards ending our liberty and individualism”?
Airport security is focused primarily on the consumer of a service due to an empirically supported threat from a sub-set of consumers. It is a complex subject and like non- military drone use deserves it’s own blog post and discussion. This subject of this blog post is a proposed law to record workers. The Legislator seems to have presented no empirical evidence to document the scope of the problem nor show alternatives addressing the core problems have been tried and fallen short. She has offered no proof of concept in another state or country nor has she addressed the obvious civil liberties issue with recording workers. Tell me, why assume just because a legislator sports a D and claims to be a P, they’re not sometimes capable of foolishness?
Emma’s here’s your “empirical evidence”.
“Facing legal roadblocks, medical malpractice claims dwindle”
“The number of medical malpractice claims fell to a record low in Wisconsin last year as the state-managed insurance fund for the doctors grew to more than $1.2 billion, newly released records show.
Only 84 medical malpractice suits were filed in Wisconsin last year — down from 140 the previous year — according to new statistics compiled by the Director of State Courts. For comparison, there were 294 actions filed in 1999.
“Ninety-nine percent of lawyers … just don’t want to take medical malpractice cases,” said Michael End, a veteran Milwaukee medical malpractice attorney. “The cases are very expensive, very time consuming and so many are lost that ought to be won….”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/facing-legal-roadblocks-medical-malpractice-claims-dwindling-b99466413z1-297180891.html
Wisconsin has close to six-million people. If you think the physician care for all of Wisconsin is of such pristine quality, than, surgeons have nothing to fear from the video.
Again, I think this protects the vast majority of surgeons who want to do things the right way, but helps identify those who may perform “below an acceptable standard,” in the operating room.
There’s no evidence of that protection for the vast majority of physicians nor evidence of bad physicians improving. Why? Because this proposed law has no proof of concept. Heck, Sinicki doesn’t even present testing data according to this blog post. Interesting you bring up personal injury lawyers. Could this be their idea? Hard to see how Sinicki’s district would be for expansion of video recording to another group of workers or that her constituents wouldn’t recognize a slippery slope when they see one. How ’bout we record attorneys working hours and find out just how they spend their time collecting their fees? Sound like a good trade?
Emma,
I haven’t read you so animated since you announced your support for Martha Laning as DPW chair.
I emailed Rep. Sinicki’s office a link to this thread. I don’t ever recall you criticizing a Democrat so directly.
I’ve criticized President Obama, Senator Baldwin, Rep Ron Kind, Former Senator Max Baucus and any neo-liberal on either side of the aisle on this blog. I dissent from this Blog’s take on issues quite often as a matter of fact, including the treatment of Martha Laning as compared to the other announced candidates. Have I missed the memo that we’re all supposed goose-step in sync?
Emma, I don’t recall any of those and I try to read everything you comment here at BB.
Can you provide a link back to some of those criticisms?
I suggest if you are so interested in my commenting history, then you take the time to comb through the last few years. And why not just build a database of every BB commenter’s remarks so’s better to track their every opinion? Yours of course we all know very well – weed good, leakages bad, and now apparently, personal injury attorney’s need some love. Perhaps Rebecca Kleefisch should take up their cause. Have a ball.
Emma,
You dug your own hole. YOU very specifically named the Dems YOU claim YOU’VE criticized at BB, “I’ve criticized President Obama, Senator Baldwin, Rep Ron Kind, Former Senator Max Baucus.”
You claim you never criticized Chris Abele and on that I think you’re correct. If you did, I don’t recall it.
Below’s the most recent BB post with Max Baucus in it that I could find. It’s from 2013.
“Letter from an Emoprog”
http://bloggingblue.com/2013/10/letter-from-an-emoprog/
I didn’t see you in the thread.
Did I miss something?
No need to “comb” anything, just try Google, enter one of those names, along with Emma, and Blogging Blue.
My guess is that you’re “carrying water” for someone at DPW or high up in Dem party leadership, who is upset with Rep. Sinicki. Until you return links to examples of criticisms of POTUS, Sen. Baldwin, and Rep. Kind, Baucus at BB, I’ll probably have to stick with that.
At least Rep. Sinicki got a front-page story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Rep. Sargent did it with marijuana legalization. Before that, Mary Burke got a few. Otherwise the GOP pretty much owns that front-page.
So until I prove my absolute dissent from Democrats, my opinion on this issue (which coincidentally falls in direct disagreement with your own) is invalid. Moreover, I must secretly be a Democratic insider embedded as a Blogging Blue commenter working on a nefarious mission for some shadowy leadership cabal. And to top it all off, the mark of quality for this dubious piece of legislation is that it made the Journal Sentinel. Got it.
I am always amazed when people are so quick to criticize before actually learning the facts!
Emma, did you actually read the bill, I doubt it. The bill is permissive, not mandatory. The recordings are treated just like any other medical record. No one would even see it unless there was an issue.
I want you to look into the eyes of Chris, from Green Bay, who lost his 40 year old wife when her electro cardiologist performed what should have been a routine procedure, she died on the table after he nicked her main artery. He was supposed to have a cardiac surgeon in the room, he didn’t, because he didn’t have the time to wait for him. A camera would have picked this up. He wouldn’t have been told by 4 different attorney’s that she didn’t make enough money to justify going through the process of a malpractice suit.
Or maybe sit down and talk to the parents of Julie Rubenzer, who went for a routine cosmetic surgery procedure and came out in a coma because the surgeon wanted to save money and not have an anesthesiologist in the room. He overdosed her. When she flatlined he crossed his arms and refused to help her. It took an administrator from the clinic to come in, check her pulse and start CPR. Julie died 3 months later. The camera would have picked this up. Her family would have got justice and closure, 10 years later they are still living the nightmare.
These are just 2 of the families that I have met across the State, there is story after story like this.
On the flip side, if a doctor is accused of malpractice, this recording could be used to clear his or her name.
I strongly suggest before you attack something you know nothing about you take the time to learn what is driving it.
And, for the record, I will hold up my progressive democrat credentials next to yours anytime.
Responding to comments on a blog is never a good idea for a legislator. And if you’re going to do it, then I think best to educate on problem definition and how video recording is the next best and necessary solution to said problem. Presenting heartrending anecdotes as evidence isn’t going to cut it in Committee so why not present the evidence here as well? Zach posts Senator Vinehout’s articles here and would probably do the same for you – unless of course he too has spotted the slippery-slope. I’m also surprised you wouldn’t at least cite testing. You don’t address the potential misuse of video except to say you would criminalize unauthorized sharing – in your professional experience has that been a successful deterrent to hackers? And this stops sharing with the Federal government how? My deeper concern is the expansion of video recording in the workplace and the long-term implications to workers. My suggestion is why not try it out on yourself and your staff before you demand others join in? Doubtless your Republican colleagues would happily (eagerly?) assist you with review, oversight, and warn you about each and every legal implication of your day-to-day activities.
I think you’ve done the Party some harm here. By answering blog commenters, you’ve placed yourself at the level of political hobbyists. You’ve also demonstrate that WI Democrats would abuse any turn at governance. Legislation hurtling us towards a future dystopia doesn’t help the Party demonstrate they will strengthen the working and middle classes, improve access to quality, affordable education, replace funding cuts, protect the environment, etc. You personally are supposed to be for worker rights and so is your Party – your legislation lays the precedent to expand workplace misery.
EmmaR,
Aren’t you a Democrat?
Why in your last sentence, the 15th, do you write, “You personally are supposed to be for worker rights and so is your Party.”
IMHO, if this were really EmmaR writing this, alone, she would have written “our,” party. OT, imho sentence four suggests strongly to me that someone was involved in writing this who is very familiar BB, so I’m guessing this comment was a “team” effort. Is part of the team a Public Relations/Communications firm on retainer with the Medical Society of Milwaukee or someone else compensated by physician/surgeon groups?
Reasonable people can disagree, but here’s my quick break down of your 15 sentences:
Six 1,3,4,10,11,12 simply ignored the legislation and were very dubious communications advice, that completely ignored the central issue, balancing patient rights with surgeon rights. Sentences 11 and 12 are laugh-out-loud funny.
Sentence two is simply wrong. Everyone except you seems to have no trouble “defining” the “problem.” People died in surgery and no one was held accountable. A serious problem for surgeons is that they were also not exonerated. That’s part of the equation of Rep. Sinicki’s legislation, to protect surgeons who do things the right way.
Sentence, 5, at least is relevant, but it’s also wrong. Tons of people video tape their baby’s birth, so while that test data is of only one kind of procedure, it does exist, and it hasn’t caused any of the downstream issues you raise. “Making a Video of Your Baby’s Birth” http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Making_a_Video_of_Your_Childbirth Do you want to outlaw that? As I wrote last night at 9:03, surgeons are already using cameras to help them perform surgery. “With software and robotics increasingly becoming part of the process, some surgeons already use cameras” http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/tumor/pancreasdiseases/web%20pages/laparoscopic%20surgery/WHAT%20IS%20LAP%20SURGERY.html “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Sentence 6 and 14 are about fear of misuse of the video. Yes, U.S. laws against encryption are a very serious problem. Yes for the sake of U.S. manufacturing, IT, and practically everything else, they should be overturned. Yes, criminals will use them to avoid arrest and prosecution, but that’s the price we pay for freedom. Per Ben Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But with CIA/NSA in bed with BigData (Google, Amazon (Bezos is building the CIA’s cloud), Apple, all the telecoms)) laws against encryption won’t be repealed anytime soon. These two sentences avoid the central issue. Is Rep. Sinicki’s legislation a fair arbitration of patients rights and physician rights? I don’t want to diminish the importance of adequate archiving and safeguarding the data, but you don’t get to that until you’ve made a decision about the legislation as a tool for quality control/assurance.
Three sentences, 8, 14, 15, claim this abuses workers. OB/Gyn’s and their staffs don’t appear to agree. None of those three-sentences, however, makes any attempt to address that there are unexpectedly dead patients and a lot of unanswered questions? That’s bad for the deceased and their families, it’s bad for surgeons and the medical profession.
Sentence 9 is gratuitous and imho disrespectful to the people who died and Rep. Sinicki. I suggest you apologize. The JS wouldn’t have front-paged this if they didn’t think their readers were interested.
Sentence 7 is about the Federal gov’t. How is this relevant? If the patient has Medicare or Medicaid, the federal government is already involved on the insurance side. Depending on where the surgery is performed, there’s probably at least some level of oversight by some federal agency.
Sentence 13 assumes the legislation is a mistake. When you prove that, that sentence may be relevant. It’s an insult to Rep. Sinicki and I’d encourage you to apologize.
I have tremendous respect for the intense multiple pressures under which the vast majority of physicians routinely practice outstanding medicine. They spend an inordinate amount of time fighting with for-profit insurance companies (single-payer, a really robust Medicare-for-all would solve a lot of this) to get decent care for their patients. The self-inflicted physician shortage is another issue I raised above. Solving that would resolve some of this, but it would also cut physician income. Given how deeply they have to go into debt to graduate from Medical school, there are a lot of tough issues.
Below is what you wrote, numbered.
1. Responding to comments on a blog is never a good idea for a legislator.
2. And if you’re going to do it, then I think best to educate on problem definition and how video recording is the next best and necessary solution to said problem.
3. Presenting heartrending anecdotes as evidence isn’t going to cut it in Committee so why not present the evidence here as well?
4. Zach posts Senator Vinehout’s articles here and would probably do the same for you – unless of course he too has spotted the slippery-slope.
5. I’m also surprised you wouldn’t at least cite testing.
6. You don’t address the potential misuse of video except to say you would criminalize unauthorized sharing – in your professional experience has that been a successful deterrent to hackers?
7. And this stops sharing with the Federal government how?
8. My deeper concern is the expansion of video recording in the workplace and the long-term implications to workers.
9. My suggestion is why not try it out on yourself and your staff before you demand others join in?
10. Doubtless your Republican colleagues would happily (eagerly?) assist you with review, oversight, and warn you about each and every legal implication of your day-to-day activities.
11. I think you’ve done the Party some harm here.
12. By answering blog commenters, you’ve placed yourself at the level of political hobbyists.
13. You’ve also demonstrate that WI Democrats would abuse any turn at governance.
14. Legislation hurtling us towards a future dystopia doesn’t help the Party demonstrate they will strengthen the working and middle classes, improve access to quality, affordable education, replace funding cuts, protect the environment, etc.
15. You personally are supposed to be for worker rights and so is your Party – your legislation lays the precedent to expand workplace misery.
Cut the crap. You sucker in a Democratic legislator not noted for her impulse control to a blog comments section just because you disagree with a commenter. While this proposed legislation is bad, you have to consider the overall Democratic voice she brings to Madison. But you didn’t consider it. You invited her to become an object of peer and opposition ridicule and she fell for it. The actual bloggers on this site perform an important service. The commenters do not. I’m going to repeat that. You do not matter here. Nor do I, nor does any commenter. It’s a hobby or a game or trolling or a diversion, and even the few who are painfully sincere are self-aware enough to understand the act of posting a comment has no impact on winning hearts and minds of voters in the real world. If you really felt it was so important, then just connect her with Zach to provide an article. That is a dignified approach and places her in control of her message such as it is.
Emma wrote: “Cut the crap.”
Having a bad day?
Emma wrote: “You sucker in a Democratic legislator not noted for her impulse control…”
Textbook example of an “ad hominem.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.”
To quote you above, it means you have “nothing.”
Please apologize to Rep. Sinicki for an insult to her office as state legislator and one that was aimed at her character.
Emma wrote: “…to a blog comments section just because you disagree with a commenter.”
No, as I explained above, I’ve increasingly considered you a bellwether on DPW and Democratic party leadership. I recall you as a very strong supporter of Mary Burke who opposed any attempts to primary her candidacy.
Emma wrote: “While this proposed legislation is bad,”
If you had any actual arguments, you wouldn’t be resorting to baseless “ad hominem” attacks against her character.
Emma wrote, “you have to consider the overall Democratic voice she brings to Madison.”
No, I don’t.
Emma wrote: “But you didn’t consider it.”
Correct.
Emma wrote: “You invited her…”
Wrong again.
Emma wrote: “…to become an object of peer and opposition ridicule and she fell for it.”
Rep. Sinicki has demonstrated courage. She chose to comment her under her own name. She knew full well that she was opening herself to cowardly attacks from those who hide behind the safety of a handle. Rep. Sinicki’s comments have been insightful, measured, respectful and helpful to the conversation. Her willingness to dialogue with individual Dems speaks volumes about her leadership.
Emma wrote: “The actual bloggers on this site perform an important service.”
Agree.
Emma wrote: “The commenters do not.”
Disagree, but some provide more value than others.
Emma wrote: “I’m going to repeat that.”
Are you getting paid by the word?
Emma wrote: “You do not matter here.”
Agree.
Emma wrote: “Nor do I, ….
Too easy.
Emma wrote: “…nor does any commenter. It’s a hobby or a game or trolling or a diversion, and even the few who are painfully sincere are self-aware enough to understand the act of posting a comment has no impact on winning hearts and minds of voters in the real world.
Is this a recent insight?
Yesterday, you posted five times in “Why is the national media buying Gov. Scott Walker’s “everyman” routine?” http://bloggingblue.com/2015/04/why-is-the-national-media-buying-gov-scott-walkers-everyman-routine/
Emma wrote: “If you really felt it was so important,”
Again, I contacted her because imho, you’re very well connected with DPW and Dem leadership in Wisconsin.
Emma wrote: “…then just connect her with Zach to provide an article.”
I would never presume to advise Zach on content management. Since he already published on the JS’ coverage of the deaths and the proposed legislation, he’s already well aware of all the issues. Likewise, I would never presume to counsel Rep. Sinicki on communications. Since she’s one of the few Dems to grab the JS’ front-page away from the GOP, she really doesn’t need my help.
Emma wrote: “That is a dignified approach and places her in control of her message such as it is.”
Huh?
After slandering the Representative about “impulse control,” you’re pontificating about what’s “dignified?”
Do you mean that if she authored a piece here at BB you wouldn’t have commented the same vicious, personal attacks that you made in this thread?
Comments sections aren’t the real world, play no useful function, and none of the comments matter except to feed whatever need the commenter has at the time.
What “need” are you feeding?
My hunch is you’re compensated for attacking Rep. Sinicki. How else to explain how frequently you repeat stuff you’ve already said.
“It’s a hobby or a game or trolling or a diversion, and even the few who are painfully sincere are self-aware enough to understand the act of posting a comment has no impact on winning hearts and minds of voters in the real world.”
Please apologize to Rep. Sinicki for the irresponsible and false statements you have made about her.
As I am sure many here do, I completely agree with your concerns about proper archiving of any video, as well as maintaining a healthy workplace where surgical teams can practice great medicine. The facts are that the US leads the world in spending on health care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita , but the positive outcomes for providers and patients are not happening with the frequency both want.
IMHO, you’re tied in with physician groups/hospital association in Wisconsin, so please mention to them the national issues. As I touched on earlier, imho, the health insurance oligopoly no longer provides any value to patients. Physicians, hospitals, nurses, allied health professionals, Big Pharma, and medical device makers do. Shifting to single-payer, (Medicare-for-all with much greater reimbursements than it currently provides) would eliminate the TAX that the health insurance oligopoly is upon the entire system. Universal coverage also brings other benefits, (1) it shifts the entire US health care system away from the “disaster medicine” that is normally practiced, towards a more preventitive model. (2) Improvement in public health and that helps the economy, because healthy workers are more productive. (3) infectious diseases are caught much sooner in countries with single payer, because people don’t fear that discovering illness is the expressway to bankruptcy. Of course those are national issues that Wisconsin cannot address. (4) Universal coverage helps businesses, especially small businesses. They can compete on their core competencies without worrying that worker illnesses could hurt net income.
Rep. Sinicki is in the lead trying to improve the situation. Whomever you’re allied with should be contacting her with constructive suggestions about ways to improve the legislation. As you apparently fail to recognize, when people die unexpectedly in surgery, it’s bad for all surgeons. When no one is held accountable, it’s worse and implies responsibility on the medical team, which may or may not be the case.
Prior to reading your comments in this thread, I had positive regard for your comments, although we did not always agree. In the past I recall you being very strong on reproductive rights and sexism. Your casual calumny (the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander.) against Rep. Sinicki was beneath you, really forced me to ask if you’re actually writing this stuff. I don’t know. Clearly the comments are informed by someone very familiar with BB and you fit that bill.
For your own sake, please apologize to Rep. Sinicki.
Below is a high level look at what imho single payer health care (and dental) in the US should evolve into
“Everyone gets a ‘medical debit card’ with perhaps $5000 in it to be used for qualifying medical expenses (including dental) for the year.
Expenses beyond that are covered by catastrophic insurance.
At the end of the year, the debit card holder gets a check for the unused balance on the card, up to $4,000, with the $1,000 to be spent on preventative measures not refundable.
The next year, the cards are renewed for an additional $5,000.”
http://moslereconomics.com/2009/03/02/mosler-health-care-proposal/
EmmaR,
It does take a certain amount of individual knowledge to decipher a useful pov from a lot of the comments, but there are occasional gems.
Though I probably use the comment sections to let off a bit of steam more than I should, I see that it is probably used by corporate partisans (WPR-NPR for example) under the guise of legitimate reporting, to disparate anger and distract from other meaningful action, large parts of the public.
I try to more than balance my people to people political activism against merely typing comments. That activism doesn’t always appear as something most would label “political,” though it is.
Cheers.
…dissipate anger…….
*urrgh spell checker*
The bloggers make this site, the comments are what they are. Same everywhere except the curated sites (like NYT). And who cares? Even if someone can’t distinguish real vs. virtual, it’s harmless nearly always.
Hello Emma
Until you never been part of something like this, one can truly never understand the gravity of Malpractice. One slice or part of the conversation is that in the event something does go wrong, it deserves a proper investigation, and not just one person or one teams word. It deserves transparency. It shouldn’t be a problem if the person chooses to have this done!
EmmaR,
Agreeing with you about Democrats leading the way or colluding to “spy,” on workers anywhere is wrong-headed. The Representative’s bill if she’s set on writing anything, should be about re-instating rules to film the Joel Kleefisch types from the capitol gallery. Next point would be to make it mandatory for police to have a trained cinematographer at each arrest to record actions of themselves fully, in order to arrest someone or even press charges. Seems they have no problem with enough cameras of their own already to record crowds at public gatherings.
Insurance companies would be using medical footage to withhold payments, litigate on whatever ground they could ever think of, for or against patients and/or hospital staff. Classroom footage of teachers would be next in line to back claims of, “under-performance.”
I believe the slaves in the US Amazon distribution warehouses are continually surveilled and body cavity searched daily. I don’t shop there. Decent wages and other non-punitive “incentives” are what improve worker performance and care about their companies their employer and their own personal performance and maintenance of high standards of practice.
There is no greater good to ever be obtained through institution of this idea.
Yep, Amazon packers are exactly who I was thinking of. The German unions are pretty involved in fighting this over there. No big surprise other commenters missed it. But why did Sinicki?
Emma, Rep. Sinicki certainly isn’t the first elected official to comment here, and the fact that you want to denigrate her desire to engage with folks who are politically active on their level is disappointing.
I’m a constituent of Rep. Sinicki’s and I’ve always found her willingness to directly engage voters to be refreshing in contrast to many electeds who prefer a hands-off approach to dealing with voters.
Denigrate or disagree? You all fall into the exaggeration trap of the online world. As a blogger you can engage and persuade – you should invite her to contribute in that role. But comments sections are the equivalent of graffiti on bathroom stalls and unfortunately, Rep. Sinicki has now signed her name and number to this one.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Emma,
No one forced you to write, “I’ve criticized President Obama, Senator Baldwin, Rep Ron Kind, Former Senator Max Baucus … .”
Our conversation is no longer about Rep. Sinicki. It’s about YOUR very specific claims that YOU had criticized Dems at Blogging Blue. YOU chose to name names at 11:55am. Why YOU picked former Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is beyond me, but YOU did. At 11:55 did YOU want to leave the impression that YOU keep very close tabs on YOUR commenting history? If not, why name names?
As I mentioned earlier, I’ll be thrilled to reassess your comments about Rep. Sinicki’s legislation, if you can produce links to YOUR criticisms President Obama, Senator Baldwin, Rep. Ron Kind, and Baucus that YOU claim YOU have made at BB, and if those criticisms approximate the strength with which you’ve criticized the Representative from the 20th Assembly District. I don’t ever recall even mild criticism from you about any elected Dems. I didn’t intend that then or now as a dis. What initially caught my attention was the vigor with which I saw your handle going after Rep. Sinicki. I’ve seen you “vigorous” in your criticism of other commenters, or Steve Carlson, but I don’t recall it aimed at an elected Dem. I make plenty of mistakes, so as long as you provide those links, I’m happy to stand corrected.
W/R/T the JS’s front-page, I’m sorry all the major print and electronic media outlets are controlled by corporations. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is and Dems, especially labor, have not found a way to get our message out. IMHO, once we understand that, it elevates marijuana legalization as an issue, because at least the JS (and I suspect other local media throughout the state) will cover it. That suggests to me that they believe that legalization will help their net income from subscriptions and ad revenue. Part of their calculus about front-paging WIGOP photos and HEADLINES including Walker/Fitzgerald/Vos appears similarly motivated. IMHO, it’s the front-page photos and headlines that move the needle on voter perceptions about who matters. A more cynical view is that large shareholders force them to front-page Walker and WIGOP with threats to dump the stock if they don’t. If you buy that, should the AFL-CIO consider buying Journal Media Group, which now controls the JS plus some smaller newspapers? All of Journal Communications’ radio and TV stations trade separately on the NYSE, because net income from those properties is higher. Whether the oligarchs would let the AFL-CIO purchase Journal Media Group is a fair question that’s way above my paygrade. If they did, at least that would give Big Labor a print/online/podcast platform from which to get our message out. I doubt the AFL-CIO would make money on the purchase.
If the AFL-CIO isn’t going to buy the JS, and I don’t see that on the horizon, then imho it makes sense for Dems to consider issues that the local media will cover. I agree completely that’s far from an ideal solution. W/R/T getting the Dem message out in April 2015, I just don’t know what choice we have. Every day is a battle for the media’s attention. Dems are getting killed on talk radio and prior to November 2016, I don’t see any way to change that. That leaves the print media and their online content. So every front-page photo of Walker, Fitzgerald or Vos, every front-page headline that contains their names, is imho a big incremental loss for Dems.
OT, along with marijuana legalization, I was remiss in not including Mayor Barrett’s Street Car victory. IMHO, that was largely because the JS backed him on it. That was a huge win over AM talk radio and WIGOP. The JS has also done great work on faulty crime stats in the City of Milwaukee http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/hundreds-of-assault-cases-misreported-by-milwaukee-police-department-v44ce4p-152862135.html and police brutality. That reporting was about the only support African-Americans ever get in the media. Without the JS’ Dan Bice’s reporting about the John Doe, there never would have been recall, nor would Francis Schmitz and other Republicans have gotten involved in the John Doe. Is the John Doe dead? I don’t know. At least to this point, the JS has been good in trying to hold the state Supreme Court accountable for the John Doe, “State high court won’t hear arguments in John Doe cases.” http://www.jsonline.com/news/state-high-court-wont-hear-arguments-in-john-doe-cases-b99467758z1-297846101.html
Ad hominem. I guess that means you’ve got nothing.
Emma,
Think it’s a little late to play the victim card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.”
YOU’RE the one who put YOU’RE character in play.
YOU’RE the one who claimed, “I’ve criticized President Obama, Senator Baldwin, Rep Ron Kind, Former Senator Max Baucus,….”
As is becoming increasingly clear, and to quote you, YOU are the one has “nothing.”
Not only did you never criticize Baucus, it increasingly appears you never criticized President Obama, Senator Baldwin, or Rep. Ron Kind.
Zero for four, am I wrong about that?
Absent any links, do you want a reward and applause for making FOUR false claims?
Sue made an excellent point and the article touched on it, “He also said he had questions about how many cameras would be required; who would operate them; how the information would be stored; and who would be responsible for making sure patient information is kept confidential.”
There’s an enormous variety of surgeries. At a practical level, a one-size-fits-all camera doesn’t seem to work. With software and robotics increasingly becoming part of the process, some surgeons already use cameras http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/tumor/pancreasdiseases/web%20pages/laparoscopic%20surgery/WHAT%20IS%20LAP%20SURGERY.html
Not sure if that video is already available to patients or not.
Putting a video on the roof of an operating room may not generate very helpful data to anyone.
I worked in an operating room for 10 years. Ever hear that phrase hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of terror? My first thought on reading this was where would they place the camera or cameras to get a clear view of a crisis situation in order to determine if everybody did exactly what they were supposed to and are therefore blameless?
If you’ve ever watched medical people handling an emergency you could see how a camera and mic would miss as much as it would pick up. There is a lot of movement, a lot of communication at all levels of volume. All the great camera angles you see on the medical shows won’t be available, and you’ll open a whole new tangle for litigants to fight over.
Just my take on this.
Sue, thanks for an excellent comment, really helpful.
John, fyi, totally without malice,
Though I do appreciate your input I mostly skip reading your longer screeds completely.
Thanks for the feed back Sue, there are actually provisions for emergency situations in the bill. Under the bill if there is an emergency and permission cannot be received ,they are to proceed without recording, this is about patient safety and protection and I would never put a persons life in jeopardy.
Actually John, most of the issues you raised are addressed in the bill. It is still in draft form and as soon as it is public I will share it here…sometime early next week. This is not a bill that was simply slapped together, we have spent the last year researching and gathering information.
That would be nice, thanks. Here’s my feedback:
Where will cameras be placed? What is the minimum requirement for quality of recording equipment? Who pays for the recording equipment, and followup storage and tracking? And, how does this work with the recent (within the last few years) legislation that puts sometimes impossible roadblocks in front of patients and families filing malpractice claims?
Let’s start with the last question because that is what prompted this proposal. If you look at my earlier comment it really explains it. i have been working with several families who clearly had strong basis for malpractice suits due to gross negligence of the doctor. As you said, it is nearly I possible to file a malpractice claim, lawyers will not take the cases because it is costly to prove and the caps placed on the cases does not make it worthwhile for the attorney.
The facility would be responsible for installing the equipment, many already have cameras installed for training purposes. Under the bill, these cameras would have to capture the entire room, we are not focused on the intricacies of the actually surgery, but rather what is going on around the room, who is in the room, who enters when and in the very rare case of an error, how does the surgery team respond.
As for storage, it would be treated like every other digital medical record and subject to all State and Federal privacy laws.
DHS will have the responsibility of promulgating rules regarding reasonable cost to the patient and the quality of both audio and video.
We are also adding language that would make it a felony to post these videos on any form of social media. The patient does have the right to purchase a copy of the recording ( I don’t know why anyone would want it.). Bit I felt it was important to protect doctors as well and don’t want to see a doctors life and career ruined because of an angry patient.
Thank you for participating in the discussion, Rep Sinicki. A much welcomed gesture.
Thanks, I don’t usually respond on blogs but because it involves my proposal I think I need to be part of the conversation.
To add my own two cents here, I’ll just note that the on-topic back and forth about the merits of this bill are exactly what this blog is supposed to be about. I posted this is a topic for discussion because the legislation is still in its very early form, and I’d like to think that Rep. Sinicki appreciates input from all corners, not just from the politically connected or lobbyists with a vested interest in said legislation.
There are certainly pros and cons to the legislation Rep. Sinicki will be submitting, and I’m on the fence as to whether cameras in operating rooms would be a net positive or would do more harm than good.
And to go slightly off topic, I just want to address a point made by Emma about body cams for police officers. While I appreciate your opposition to “big brother” monitoring all, I fail to see how putting body cams on police officers does more harm than good. You’re absolutely right that officers should not be judged wholly on the split-second decisions they make absent a larger view of the context and how they’ve handled themselves as officers in general, but I’m of the belief that oversight is not a bad thing, especially when it comes to providing clarity on situations in which it can sometimes be difficult to get an accurate accounting of what happened because of the nature of such emergent situations.
Emma R: the most authoritative bathroom wall scribbler in all of Wisconsin. I can just see it: ” For a good scold call Emma R at 555-URWRONG “
And in the next stall over, Steve Carlson.
I’d share a public bathroom with you any day Emma. We can discuss books while we scribble.
http://emmaroseromance.com/
http://youtu.be/eeuD_VwNyXc
Thanks so much for alerting readers here to this incident. Understand that I am aware of at least two other incidents not quite of this magnatude, but resulted in the patients suffering limited permanent disabilities.
Definitely- I’ll bring old-fashioned mix. Not me, though it’s a great idea – very lucrative genre, work when you want, hoever much you want.
I’m a big fan of all her books. Rumor has it the next book will be a blockbuster titled ” A Night With the Millionaire Rock Star’s Roadie at the Interstate Freeway Rest Area “. Style, substance, steamy sex scenes, whew! Should be a mighty good read.
(Im A new-bee here)anyone mind if I jump in here? I have done much study on the subject of surgery harm. Full disclosure, the audio/video “Better a dead patient than admit error is my wife’s story)
After reading this interesting thread, I felt compelled to offer some known national data so everyone can make an informed opinion..
1. Medical harm problem is an national problem, according to 2014 Senate hearings testimony it has now become the number three cause of death in America. 2014 C-SPAN LINK -> http://www.c-span.org/video/?320495-1/hearing-patient-safety [full disclosure, I was at these hearings]
2. Hospitals (the entire medical community) are well known for covering up human error as well as gross negligence, we need to first look at the best information/numbers available on the federal level,
2012 The office of inspector general & HHS found about %25 of patients experience harm, half of those are serious including death. SEE LINK ->
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-09-00091.pdf
3. The above information (2012 The office of inspector general report) does not list surgery number separately, so the 25% harmed, and 80% covered up/not reported is a good basis to understand how much harm is being covered up.. If we can agree on that baseline.. then we ask “What is going on in operating rooms to cause such alarm to this bill?”
4. Here is something we all should be aware of, yet never told in informed consent: (aint no joke)
Ghost surgeries:
Some patients painstakingly vet their surgeons to find a highly skilled professional to perform their operation, only to discover later that they didn’t get the person they wanted or expected.
5. A different physician can step in for many reasons, not all good..
It’s not clear how often such “ghost surgeries” occur, because they are not tracked or studied. But lawsuits provide a glimpse into the allegations of unhappy patients who had bad outcomes, started to look into what went wrong, and learned they were mistaken about which doctor performed the procedure. LINK -> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-23/news/ct-met-surgeon-switch-20120923_1_medical-residents-surgeon-medical-emergency
6. A little background on the subject of “bait and switch, or Ghost surgeries.
House Bill 742 Introduced by Honorable Leuis R. Villafuerte Ghost Surgeries.
This practice has become prevalent in many hospitals .. the grave consequences of this unethical practice are addressed in this bill.
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB00742.pdf
7. Even the Joint Commission mandate safe surgery protocol since 2004, yet many operating rooms continue to ignore the warnings..
As there is no way to enforce or verify proper procedures were followed to prevent sentinel events or never events, the problem of needless surgery harm continues.. Mandated protocols without verification/enforcement are no better than drunk driving laws that are never enforced.. just basic logic.
Cameras would easily ensure at least the basic known safe protocols are followed, and the people in the room are the ones qualified to do their task. Any decent surgeon or staff member should have no fear of this?
If surgery teams/hospitals do fear someone seeing unqualified staff, or wrong surgeon.. I feel sure they will fight the transparency of cameras. http://www.pssjournal.com/content/3/1/14
8. 2015, as the need for basic oversight of operating rooms increases, the South Carolina Hospital association were warned.
Quote:
At least 500 of the 5,000 patients who die each year following surgeries in South Carolina hospitals should be saved, along with an estimated $28 million, if his pre-surgery checklist is only minimally successful, Gawande estimates. http://www.scha.org/safe-surgery-2015-south-carolina
9. Here is a surgery case involving Stanford hospital (caught falsifying records to cover -up surgery problems.. It prompted a bill to give patients access to electronic medical records “Chronological audit report” to make sure the records were not altered to cover up after harm happens.
October 14, 2011 Senate Bill 850 triggered after a Stanford hospital was caught (allegedly) going back and falsifying a patient’s records after the patient died in their care. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_850_cfa_20110627_113503_asm_comm.html [Powerful hospital associations shut it down..]
10. If I am permitted to continue on the soap box here, I have a larger concern about surgery documentation (In my wife’s case, not a single surgeon is listed on the staff report ever entering or exiting the operating room) Just six short hours after walking int her trusted hospital a fully functional working adult, she was left 24/7 dependent in 2008.
A little googling the subject of medical records in court, you will find these America’s medical records “BUSINESS records, that trillions of dollars flow through, fail not only business records rules, but also fail federal evidenturary rules of trustworthiness under the exception to the hearsay rule. [In a nut shell how do they prove a single word in an operative report?] They cant, so human nature and logic dictate the facts will not be documented.
No operative report, no matter how accurate, or how deceptive can be verified as trustworthy without audio/video, and hospitals know it, and fear someone will start asking questions of trustworthiness.
And to cap this little fact finding mission.. It is more than noteworthy the 2015 Joint Commission GOALS include
1. getting the right patient,
2. Make sure that the correct surgery is done on the correct patient and at the correct place on the patient’s body.
3. Mark the correct place on the patient’s body where the surgery is to be done.
4. Pause before the surgery to make sure that a mistake is not being made.
Sound crazy right? well once your under anesthesia, no one is looking without cameras, and it will all be covered up.
Hospitals simply have NOT taken responsibility for our operating rooms, and administrators continue to get huge bonuses..
Hospital associations hold the key to enforcement or continued refusal of following the basics of safe surgery.
http://www.jointcommission.org/…/1/6/2015_HAP_NPSG_ER.pdf
Another quote from an outspoken global expert on the subject of surgery safety, Marty Marty Makary.
Cameras:
It may come as a surprise to patients, but doctors aren’t very good at complying with well-established best practices in their fields. One New England Journal of Medicine study found that only half of all care follows evidence-based guidelines when applicable. Fortunately, there is a technology that could work wonders to improve compliance: cameras. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444620104578008263334441352
Thank you for permitting me to participate here.
Danny Long, (not red or blue, just want to keep other families from this nightmare)