Tag Archives: informed dissent

Patient’s Right of Informed Dissent

MIGHT HAVE TO BE DECLARED . . . IN WRITING!

By AL Whitney © copyround 2017
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net is acknowledged.

Last January 2017 a close family relative suffered a serious medical emergency requiring hospitalization. His condition was so critical his kidneys shut down. While in the hospital he was given extremely potent drugs in an attempt to stop life threatening abnormal heart beats. A week later his wife received a letter from his cardiologist’s office informing of the need to monitor his liver function via blood tests after his release. The drug he was receiving that required monitoring was Amiodarone.

We researched Amiodarone online and were shocked by what we discovered.

Amiodarone had been approved by the FDA WITHOUT ANY clinical trials.[1] In fact, the FDA had issued an alert in 2005 warning that it could cause severe (even lethal) pulmonary and or liver conditions and that it could worsen the arrhythmias it was being used to treat.[2] My relative’s cardiologist HAD NOT disclosed these all important facts to him or to his family. The drug was continued even though his chest x-rays revealed that he had newly developed pulmonary “infiltrates”, a lowered oxygen saturation level and was experiencing bouts of shortness of breath. When I informed my sick relative of these side effects, he discontinued the Amiodarone himself.

Then in February the same close family relative developed a post surgical blood clot. His doctor asked him to choose a blood thinning drug. Here are the choices he was given. They were written on the white board in his hospital room:

By offering him three choices, the physician put both the decision and the liability onto him. The fact that both Xarelto & Eliquis have a common side effect of increasing blood creatinine – when his poorly functioning kidneys were already causing his creatinine level to be abnormally high – was neither considered nor revealed. If his choice resulted in his death, it could be said that he had been fully informed (which he had not), had consented (had chosen), and was therefore personally responsible for the outcome. Continue reading

Advertisements