Why don't people ever sue for insufficient informed consent?

[kitty]

What is expectation and what is the law may not be one in the same.

Informed Consent

"A person may state they understand the implications of some action, as part of their consent, but in fact not have appreciated the possible consequences fully and later deny the validity of their consent for this reason. Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but is in fact (through ignorance) not present."

Also as defined at Wikipedia.com....

Ignorance 1) is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware/uninformed. Ex: "In debate class Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant in (without knowledge of) that subject." In such a case the term is not pejorative, and may even be used as a self–descriptive term, as in "I am ignorant of (some subject or topic)". Ignorance can also be more than a lack of knowledge. It can include a deliberate intent to ignore knowledge or facts that conflict with what someone believes or wants to be true.

(pejorative definition) Ignorance 2) is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs/beliefs."I know better but I choose to ignore that and do/say/act in a way that behooves me."

Many people tend to hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read. The point of all of this is, the consent form. It is a contract. When you sign it, it means you have done so with full understanding of the risks, benefits and alternatives. If you signed the form, 9 times out of 10 you have no recourse. In case you are questioning what the one in 10 is, that is when expected information is not included in the consent form. In that case, the person may have recourse.

[YGB]

Hi Kitty - thank you for providing some much needed guidance although I still can't figure out if you are providing information that says I have no chance since I signed the informed consent or if your information gives me some chance at a case. In essence, forgive me for being ignorant, but I am not sure how to interpret your latest post.

With the statement below is it saying that just because somebody signs the informed consent, it does not mean they necessarily understood the implications due to ignorance? If this is the case, then it is possible that an MD cannot simply wave the signed informed consent and say he is not liable. My interpretation of the quote below (which again may be completely off base) is that the patient has to truly be properly informed and a signature alone is not necessarily sufficient to prove that this is the case. Is that how I should interpret the quote below or are you really just trying to tell me to give up already with all of my jibber jabber?

Like medical terms, I have a hard time deciphering legal jargon and the quote below is borderline legal jargon that confuses me to some degree every time I read it. Thanks again.

"A person may state they understand the implications of some action, as part of their consent, but in fact not have appreciated the possible consequences fully and later deny the validity of their consent for this reason. Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but is in fact (through ignorance) not present."

[YGB]

Kitty - I think I get it now. Your interpretation per review of Wikipedia and your experience is that I have no chance since I signed the consent form. I have just one other question. When you state ...

"Many people tend to hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read. The point of all of this is, the consent form. It is a contract. When you sign it, it means you have done so with full understanding of the risks, benefits and alternatives. If you signed the form, 9 times out of 10 you have no recourse. In case you are questioning what the one in 10 is, that is when expected information is not included in the consent form. In that case, the person may have recourse."

I am assuming this is your statement and not from Wikipedia. Is this correct?

[YGB]

Ian - you, me, Bostonlover, and many others ... we all screwed up in a way bigger than we likely imagined was possible. You might say that we rolled the dice (or our eyes) and came up craps and that's the way it goes. We need to forgive ourselves for making a big mistake and then we need to hope for a brighter future.

Having said this, while we need to have hope for a better future, we must attempt this while dealing with frequent reminders of our new limitations that have been created by LASIK. We unfortunately are constantly confronted with our mistake because so much of life is experienced with our eyes.

Unlike you, while I accept that I messed up big time, I do not think that I need to take full responsibility of this mistake in order to move on with my life. The blame can begin with the patient, but there is enough blame to go around in the case of LASIK. I blame the FDA for allowing an elective procedure to eliminate the need of glasses or contact lenses to be performed with such big risks. I blame the LASIK community for understanding the severity of the risks, but not fully disclosing these risks to patients whether it be in advertising or in pre-screening. I blame the LASIK MD's for not performing a thorough pre-screening knowing that the stakes are so high (I never had any tear tests done so while I was declared a perfect candidate, was I really?). I blame regulators and lawyers for refusing to pursue cases relating to LASIK whether it be proper advertising, proper screening, or proper informed consent protocols.

Does blaming myself along with all of these groups mean that I can't move forward? I don't think so. The reality is that this is what I believe and to convince myself that I am the sole person who needs to shoulder the burden of complete blame would not help me get over what happened. I need to be true to myself in understanding that there were lots of things that could have prevented this disaster. I don't know if this will help me heal physically and mentally faster, slower, or neutral as compared to taking full responsibility for my decision. However, I am a realist and this is what I realistically feel is the case so I do not think that having me accept full blame would be the best way for me to move forward since I simply feel this would be an unjust burden for me to carry alone.

I understand that each person must find their own way to move forward. I am not saying I have it figured out by any means. All I am saying is that in my case, I have assessed what happened to me as stated above and now I am trying to move forward as best I can. I guess I view this similarly to a car accident. Usually more than one person is to blame and many things typically could have been done to prevent it.

I guess I should go to bed. I have given my eyes the biggest workout they have had since I came down with severe dry eye. Good night and good luck.

[Richard_R]

YGB,

I agree with you, what is happening is a tragedy. If folks really were informed what could happen, they surely would not go forward with these surgeries. These consent forms are not impressing upon folks what they are really risking. I am sure the words are on there, but a few pictures would go along way to really inform.

Eighteen years ago I made my mistake. The best I can do at this time to limit the suffering is to warn others to stay well clear of these elective vision correction surgeries. I have personally prevented at least 5 people from making this mistake. Once they talk to me, they don't do it.

If you are contemplating lasik or other similar surgeries and want an idea of what you are risking, try this.....keep your eyes open and don't blink for as long as you can. When the pain makes you blink, you have experienced what your eyes may end up feeling like for the rest of your life.

Imagine being preoccupied with your eyes all day. Imagine the feeling of looking into your girl's (or guy's) eyes with your blood red, scraping, stinging eyes. It's like that for me and many others every day. I made the mistake, don't you do it too.

This is no BS.

Richard.

[kitty]

Kitty - I think I get it now. Your interpretation per review of Wikipedia and your experience is that I have no chance since I signed the consent form. I have just one other question. When you state ...

"Many people tend to hear what they want to hear and read what they want to read. The point of all of this is, the consent form. It is a contract. When you sign it, it means you have done so with full understanding of the risks, benefits and alternatives. If you signed the form, 9 times out of 10 you have no recourse. In case you are questioning what the one in 10 is, that is when expected information is not included in the consent form. In that case, the person may have recourse."

I am assuming this is your statement and not from Wikipedia. Is this correct?

That was my statement based on over 10 years of experience dealing with Lasik and informed consent claims.

[YGB]

Kitty - those odds don't look too good (actually a 0% chance in your assessment unless the informed consent is lacking information). Then again, I thought my odds were 0% that I would be on this BB writing about severe dry eye at this point in time, but here I am. Maybe one 0% will offset the other.

Thanks again for your input. While it is not necessarily what I wanted to hear, it helps to be informed and you have indeed provided some good information.

[Lucy]

Kitty sounds as if she knows what she is talking about. Ten years of experience wrapped into a nice resource for us. I did not take part in the discussion, but read it and I think Kitty "cut to the bottom line" quickly and accurately. Great info.