Drug cocktail expected effects

[novaveritas]

is this lllinois? and ISPT involvement?

 

[Dickiesimkins]

Actually I believe the haldol was the intramuscular variety but was mainlined, so I was told. I was given several more doses of versed in which the hospital staff thought that I was hypnotized and told me to kill myself instead of reporting what had happened because of all the shame I would have to deal with. If you read the complaint you will note that I was also raped via an enema.There are several more factors that I have not even introduced yet in the complaint. The case no is 3:18-cv-00309 southern district of Ohio dayton division. Im not posting a link because I don't want this thread popping up at the top of the list when someone searches the case. Also I guess any comments should be fair game. If I want help I should be required to give information. The drug cocktail in and of itself is pretty bad, considering that it was noted that I was awake alert and oriented and refused all drugs and medications. Mix in the bac they are claiming and I now have a lot of questions that need answers. Add in the injuries I had, I was obviously beat upon. Factor in the timeline now the hospital staff have some serious explaining to do. 60 people that can't remember anything? Pay me.

 

[Hodor]

Actually I believe the haldol was the intramuscular variety but was mainlined, so I was told.

Haldol decanoate is dosed at 50 or 100mg. This is a depot injection. Administering it intravenously would be likely to cause ischemia due to the oil not dissolving in the veins.

If you had a 5mg dose as you claim, you definitely had the regular (i.e. immediate-release) lactate form, which is technically intended for IM used but can be IV'd, albeit at a slightly higher risk of causing cardiac arrythmia than when administered IM. However, I'd say the risk of you suffering life-threatening complications from an untreated skull fracture /w possible traumatic brain injury far outweighs the very minor risk of the haldol injection, especially if we're talking about a non-elderly person. Therefore, administering it was a perfectly rational choice.

 

[novaveritas]

But this isn't the place for it, so how about you keep your political bullshit to yourself.

whoa there tiger, way to completely miss the fucking point and go on a rant. The point made which you would noticed, if you had used your brain before typing, was that healthcare aint free, period. Sekio just don't pay when he is right there in hospital, instead he will pay over his whole life, and even then it won't be enough to maintain the current standard of healthcare in Canada. so fuck you.


back on topic, I don't get why this has been filed ais a civil rights claim. if the case has merit then it is a case of a medics treating someone with capacity without consent, and really don't matter how good that treatment is or isn't, or whether the doctors had the paitients best interest in mind or whatever, that right there is assault. The use of anti psychotics was expedient for the medics, If the patient was not under arrest, and had capacity and was refusing treatment then ethically the medics should get a pateint signed discharge and discharge the patient doing anything else is dangerous. If the patient then dies as a consequence that is the patients choice, the medics are covered. It doesn't matter how safe or proper the treatment is or not, No Consent = Assault

If the patient in the medics view did not have capacity but was irrationally refusing treatment then they need be able to show the patient didn't have capacity and that this was properly assessed and that the overriding of consent was legitimate.

 

[Coolwhip]

And you couldn't make that point without talking about "loonie progessives", not to mention, in the context of Sekio's comment, your whole point was stupid, when people talk about toll roads vs free roads NOBODY chimes in that "Hey roads aren't free to drive on!", Sekio's whole point was that he didn't have to pay a single cent at the point of care or during his hospital stays, so YOU missed the point.

And if I was ranting what exactly were you doing? I wasn't the one slinging insults around. Sorry you don't like to see your bullshit countered with actual facts. I know it's hard for you to process more than 280 characters at a time, but when I make assertions I like to back them up, just like you couldn't resist the urge to bring your right-wing nonsense where it doesn't belong because you thought you had an opening thanks to Sekio's comment, I can't allow said bullshit to go unchecked. You must be pretty used to being insulated from opposing thought because I seem to have really hit a nerve, maybe you should change it off Fox News every now and then.

edit: And speaking of missing points, you seem to have done it again. The OP has asked in earnest for us to stop talking about the legal side of his problem and stick to the pharmacology, maybe you would have noticed that if you had used your brain before typing, so stop trying to pretend to be a lawyer because honestly most of the legal advice you are trying to give is horribly inaccurate.

 

[novaveritas]

And you couldn't make that point without talking about "loonie progessives", not to mention, in the context of Sekio's comment, your whole point was stupid, when people talk about toll roads vs free roads NOBODY chimes in that "Hey roads aren't free to drive on!", Sekio's whole point was that he didn't have to pay a single cent at the point of care or during his hospital stays, so YOU missed the point.

And if I was ranting what exactly were you doing? I wasn't the one slinging insults around. Sorry you don't like to see your bullshit countered with actual facts. I know it's hard for you to process more than 280 characters at a time, but when I make assertions I like to back them up, just like you couldn't resist the urge to bring your right-wing nonsense where it doesn't belong because you thought you had an opening thanks to Sekio's comment, I can't allow said bullshit to go unchecked. You must be pretty used to being insulated from opposing thought because I seem to have really hit a nerve, maybe you should change it off Fox News every now and then.

edit: And speaking of missing points, you seem to have done it again. The OP has asked in earnest for us to stop talking about the legal side of his problem and stick to the pharmacology, maybe you would have noticed that if you had used your brain before typing, so stop trying to pretend to be a lawyer because honestly most of the legal advice you are trying to give is horribly inaccurate.

You have problems with reading and comprehension as well as some kind of chip on your shoulder. A Loonie is an canadian dollar, the money canadian govt creates out of thin air are loonies. You sir are a complete imbecile. But you have just learned something.
and whilst you are learning, erudite is not a kind of glue.
I have quoted your post for posterity.

 

[Dickiesimkins]

Well, if I learned anything from this thread it just affirms something I already knew, and that was the simple philosophy that if they speak at all they will expose themselves. I know what happened, likely the doctors and other staff will all claim that they can't remember anything, assuming that whoever "doctored" the file covered their ass, they will then find out that their ass was not covered and either divulge incriminating evidence or hold tight to whatever claim they asserted within the medical file that will ultimately substantiate my claims. I can say that I am a little bit disappointed with the feedback from this forum, but not really all that surprised. I was hoping to validate some of my learnings about this drug cocktail, but all I have really gotten was a fourth rate opinion from someone who sounds more than happy to take drugs x,y,z,a,d,and e, if it means they get dosed with drug k at some point, very poor neurological viewpoint imo. Just in case anyone really cares about the actual facts, I refused treatment on religious grounds, the individuals trump card when it comes to medical treatment in America. The hospital staff treated me anyway and steadily told me I wouldn't remember anything. No one could have known that I possess hsam(human superior autobiographical memory) as well as a vast knowledge of human physiology, psychology, and to a lesser extent neurology.

At this point since I'm not really getting any answers I will open the thread to questions. I truly feel that if I can share wisdom or knowledge through my experience then I have reduced harm for a predecessor seeking enlightenment and that is a big part of who I am.

Please think about this post before you reply in this thread and ask yourself if you are genuinely trying to help your brother in life, or are you trying to reaffirm some personal conception about your own ego or relevance.

 

[novaveritas]

Well, if I learned anything from this thread it just affirms something I already knew, and that was the simple philosophy that if they speak at all they will expose themselves. I know what happened, likely the doctors and other staff will all claim that they can't remember anything, assuming that whoever "doctored" the file covered their ass, they will then find out that their ass was not covered and either divulge incriminating evidence or hold tight to whatever claim they asserted within the medical file that will ultimately substantiate my claims. I can say that I am a little bit disappointed with the feedback from this forum, but not really all that surprised. I was hoping to validate some of my learnings about this drug cocktail, but all I have really gotten was a fourth rate opinion from someone who sounds more than happy to take drugs x,y,z,a,d,and e, if it means they get dosed with drug k at some point, very poor neurological viewpoint imo. Just in case anyone really cares about the actual facts, I refused treatment on religious grounds, the individuals trump card when it comes to medical treatment in America. The hospital staff treated me anyway and steadily told me I wouldn't remember anything. No one could have known that I possess hsam(human superior autobiographical memory) as well as a vast knowledge of human physiology, psychology, and to a lesser extent neurology.

At this point since I'm not really getting any answers I will open the thread to questions. I truly feel that if I can share wisdom or knowledge through my experience then I have reduced harm for a predecessor seeking enlightenment and that is a big part of who I am.

Please think about this post before you reply in this thread and ask yourself if you are genuinely trying to help your brother in life, or are you trying to reaffirm some personal conception about your own ego or relevance.

I tried to view the docket on pacer but it requires a fee.

Anyway if you want to argue that the drugs caused traumatic damage or lasting neurological damage you are looking for an expert witness, and you ain't gonna find one here, add to that the manufacturer will also fight you along with the medical profession closing ranks to protect one another.

That said Haloperidol is associated with neurological damage with long term use, it is clearly neurotoxic the metabolites are like MPTP. There is absolutely no way it would be licenced if it was introduced today just the QT elongation problems would kill it dead. On balance It should be withdrawn because it is being misused clinically and there are better alternatives if the objective is making the patient better rather than creating a compliant cabbage. There is also evidence that the use of haloperidol in traumatic brain injury TBI increases the duration of impairment in rats https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2604904/ most human studies have too many confounding factors to draw valid conclusions either way. Instinct suggests that the use of first generation neuroleptics like haloperidol in TBl or in general is not a good idea.
this is an interesting synopsis of the protocol for a Cochrane type meta study relating to treatment of TBI, I am not sure where the final paper was published,
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0374-6

good luck with taking on the hospital, if your story is as you have said then you deserve to win and I hope you do.

 

[Coolwhip]

Whatever, I can see how you probably meant that now, all your reply did was invalidate a very, very minor component of my post, just take out that first little bit about progressive loonie's and the rest stands. Just because I misread your post because of your bad grammar doesn't change the substance of what you or I said, everything still holds true. Thanks for quoting me for posterity(lol), now I will live on in eternity! Great reply though, you totally owned me. I'm so embarrassed I'll probably never show my face around here again.

Really though it makes more sense the way I read it. "Progressive government loonies" makes a whole lot more sense than "magical money loonies" I mean, you could have said "magical money" or "magical loonies" but "magical money loonies" is just kind of nonsense. And to separate the noun from its adjective(according to your last post, money is being used as an adjective here) with a weak interruption is very strange syntax.

But sure, I'm the one the chip on my shoulder. It's obvious because I can't help but bring my politics where they don't belong, and then when I am countered with real facts I resort to cursing and name calling and get offended, oh wait...

Seriously dude, go read my "rant" again, all I did was post a little data and info, I didn't say anything the least bit offensive nor attack you in any way, but it clearly hit a nerve, I can only assume that either you just don't like being challenged probably because you don't have the capacity to defend your views, or anything longer than a single paragraph is a "rant".

Since you seem to still be having trouble with it, I am going to break it down for you. Sekio's comment was not political, it was a statement of fact, a fact that is just as true as interstate highways are free to drive on. You brought politics into it, and in the context of this forum and this thread politics are bullshit which don't belong. On top of all that your post was rubbish because the statement that Canada's healthcare system is facing a $500bn funding gap is misleading(because Canada doesn't spend that much on healthcare annually); but you probably don't understand that because you didn't even read the report it came from, you just repeated some talking point you read somewhere. And you tried to make it seem like Canadians pay more in taxes for healthcare than most Americans pay for decent insurance+out of pocket costs+the tax burden incurred for uncompensated healthcare costs. Not to mention if you are going to take the point of view that universal public healthcare is wholly inferior to for-profit private healthcare(especially on the basis of cost) then perhaps you should compare it to better examples than Canada's.

I guess since the OP is done looking for answers about pharmacology, you can go back to trying to pretend to be a lawyer.

edit: To the OP, for your research, the metabolite novaveratis is referencing is HPP+. It is analogous to MPP+ not MPTP(MPP+ is a metabolite of MPTP).

 

[Hodor]

If the patient was not under arrest, and had capacity and was refusing treatment then ethically the medics should get a pateint signed discharge and discharge the patient doing anything else is dangerous. If the patient then dies as a consequence that is the patients choice, the medics are covered.

https://www.empr.com/features/intox...inst-medical-advice-lawsuit/article/785328/2/
Drunk guy suffers a head injury, signs an AMA form, leaves, is later diagnosed with brain injury, and successfully sues the physician who let him leave the hospital because he was legally intoxicated when he signed the form.

From the article:
"In normal cases, simply documenting that the patient acted "against medical advice", explaining what that advice was, and noting that the patient understood the possible consequences will generally shield you from liability. But this is not the case if the patient is intoxicated. If a patient's blood alcohol level is above the local legal limit for driving, judges and juries will often conclude that a patient cannot make an informed decision. Because of this, it is wise if you have a patient with a blood alcohol level above the limit to wait until that patient's level is below the level of intoxication before allowing them to make an AMA decision. Do not release the patient until the blood alcohol is less than the legal limit of intoxication in that jurisdiction. And always be very clear on documenting that the patient understood the ramifications, that the patient was not intoxicated or impaired, and that the patient was acting against your best medical advice."

OP stated he had "high" levels of cannabis in his system, as well as some alcohol. The cannabis would presumably render him legally intoxicated, to say nothing of the accident likely having resulted in a concussion that would also affect his ability to give informed consent.

 

[Dickiesimkins]

Thank you for that article, it confirms my point.

No amount of cannabis in your system renders you intoxicated on the amount alone, this is new ground but courts are generally holding that just because there is cannabis in your system that does not mean you have recently consumed any (likely because that is scientific fact). If that were the case some people would need 30+ days before they were no longer intoxicated from cannabis. The amount was high because I used to consume about an eighth a day of medicinal for back pain and PTSD. However I hadn't consumed any recently before the accident. And since the drug bomb I have not been able to use cannabis at all because it affects me much differently now, so I gave it up.

So what's wrong with waiting a few hours and having me sign the AMA document? The fact is they could have done that, which I am informed by an ER nurse that is exactly the protocol for such a situation, note the article doesn't recommend "just treat the patient anyway ".

Instead of following protocol they decided to treat me right away, and then hours later give me this drug cocktail, they administered several treatments (4 hours worth) before they bombed my brain with this drug cocktail. They were even stupid enough to write down that I requested an attorney. They also claim that I was talking to the police at the same time that they claim my head was inside a ct scan. This will be fun to make them explain. The police have refused to give over any information including police reports or cruzer cam videos, claiming most recently " the investigation is now under investigation, so they don't have to release the public information involved ", sound like they have nothing to hide to you?


The doctors worry over getting sued has no priority over his patients wishes, that's why they had some newbie doctor sign off on all the paperwork as responsible for all this, they knew it was going to be someone's ass if I did remember and got a lawsuit filed in time(recent tort reform really fucks John Q Public). I ask for a second medical opinion, I ask for a lawyer, I ask not to be touched, I ask to be left alone so I could pray to the Lord. I also conducted myself in a dignified manner the entire time, the only one I talked flip to was the cop that beat on me and the doctor who actually drugged me. I promised all in attendance that they would be sued, the cop said he would have me blacklisted and no attorney would take the case, I informed him that I didn't need an attorney because I am well learned in the law, he laughed and said he didn't believe me and said he would call my bluff, he got served by the United States Marshall's Service a couple weeks ago so he found out I wasn't bluffing. I feel really good about my chances of actually winning the case.

For those wondering why the suit was filed as a civil rights violation it is because the underlying circumstances are civil rights violations primarily denying my religious rights(1st amendment) as well as my 5th, 8th, and 14th amendment rights, the other aspects of the case are all secondary to the fact that they conspired under the color of state law to deprive me of constitutional rights, They subverted proper protocols and procedures and illegally drugged me against my direct stated preference. This is defined as assault. I tossed in the medical malpractice statute basically to give them an out if anyone wants to settle. Also the local courts are so corrupt I wouldn't stand a chance, however my local federal court has integrity and is not known to have ruled favorably for the city or county in these types of situations.

 

[novaveritas]

Thanks for the explanation, re the constitutional rights aspect,

The article Hodor posted is interesting reading, the doctor involved could have defended the position but didn't, because his attorney, someone with no skin in the game, advised settling. Read into that what you like.

I seem to be taking FLAK from some people who seem to want to strut around preening themselves and that has derailed things a bit.

The court and legal system is in general highly corrupt I hope you are right about your court.

 

[Hodor]

the doctor involved could have defended the position but didn't, because his attorney, someone with no skin in the game, advised settling. Read into that what you like.

"someone with no skin in the game"?

A doctor looking at a malpractice suit usually doesn't settle for a shitty public defender that couldn't give less of a fuck about the client.

In all likelihood they got a lawyer which specializes in these kinds of lawsuits, and didn't come cheap.

Those lawyers have a reputation to uphold, or else they wouldn't be able to command these fees; so yes, they do have "skin in the game".

 

[novaveritas]

"someone with no skin in the game"?

A doctor looking at a malpractice suit usually doesn't settle for a shitty public defender that couldn't give less of a fuck about the client.

In all likelihood they got a lawyer which specializes in these kinds of lawsuits, and didn't come cheap.

Those lawyers have a reputation to uphold, or else they wouldn't be able to command these fees; so yes, they do have "skin in the game".

exactly that, the lawyer has no skin in the game. The lawyer would be paid either way and if the lawyer convinces the defendant not to fight it then the lawyer appears to have got a good result without any effort, who knows what would have happened if the doctor went with their instinct, End result is the doctors insurance pays out, the lawyer gets paid by the insurer.

Although the physician was prepared to testify that although the patient was legally drunk, he was still lucid enough to make the ?against medical advice? decision, the attorney advised him that this would be a dangerous course of action and that settling the case out of court would be wiser. The case settled out of court for an amount within the physician's malpractice limits