...and Cover-upsFebruary 10 2009 at 8:04 PM
|George (Login George1st)|
Response to Malpractice & Licensure
Mike Darwin: Mr. Berk's attorney felt (rightly so, I believe) that even in cryonics cases air embolization during a perfusion procedure would be considered malpractice, or at very least fraud in the sense that it had been represented to his client that the perfusion procedures would be carried out to medical standards.
With this I whole heartily agree. The history frequently repeats itself. Recently where were reports in the case of a cryo patient ( CI-81) that unqualified blue-collar workers performed medical procedure (perfusion) causing to a cryo patient serious damages of overpressurization (and possibly embolism), along with a failure to use heparin. Their case medical adviser (an M.D.), who advised them remotely by telephone during the perfusion, stated that he did not offer them relevant medical advice because they did not ask specifically about preventing these particular problems. Not only that, but it was also revealed that ancient medical drugs, up to ten years past their expiration date were used. Again, with the knowledge and consent of this unnamed medical doctor. This was somewhat quietly swept under the rug, and no investigation of this took place. Many may disagree with me on this, but I think this was wrong and should have been investigated and a corrective action should be taken. Most of those who disagree, do so not because they do not believe hat a misconduct occurred, but because they are afraid of bad publicity. By such standard no medical misconduct ever would be investigated and corrected.