Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Ebola Outcomes

Ebola virus
Please take time to read "Free of Ebola but not fear: Nurse Nina Pham to file lawsuit against Texas Presbyterian Hospital, worries about continued health woes," a lengthy article in Dallas Morning News article (February 28, 2015).

Nurse Nina Pham is twenty-six years old.

The article concludes as follows (emphases mine):
...Pham said she has a lot of anxiety about the possible long-term effects of Ebola and the experimental drugs.

She’s been told to look out for possible sensory changes, vision loss and organ failure.

Pham previously had complications with high levels of enzymes in her liver, and she’s concerned the problem has reappeared. She said that she can’t even have a glass of wine with dinner now without getting sick.

Some of her hair has started to fall out. A doctor at NIH told her that was caused by Ebola, she said.

“I don’t know if having children could be affected by this, but that’s something I worry about,” Pham said. “Just the uncertainty of it all. And if I do have a health problem in the future, is it related to Ebola or is it something else? How do we know that? ... That’s the scariest part — it’s the uncertainty.”
Does Nurse Pham have good cause to file this lawsuit? If not, why not? If so, how much settlement should Nurse Pham receive?

Add your thoughts in the comments section below.

43 comments:

  1. She should sue Obama and his JV team of amateurs at Der Heimatlandsicherheitabteilung for letting in people from Ebola hot zones.

    If our government had been doing one of its fundamental functions in a competent manner, Mr. Ebola would have never crossed our border.

    But on the bright side, his family cried racism and extorted hush money from the hospital, thanks to the help of Jesse Highjacks 'em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      See my comments of March 3, 2015 at 5:44:00 PM EST and March 3, 2015 at 5:46:00 PM EST in this discussion we're having at this thread.

      As for suing Obama himself, ain't gonna happen.

      Delete
  2. She's a fool even to DREAM of having children under the circumstances. It would be selfish and unfair -- to those unborn babies.

    If her condition is uncomfortable and as perilous as you indicate, she has hardly been "cured" of Ebola.

    She's wrong to sue the hospital. The GOVERNMENT is responsible for her plight NOT her former place of employment.

    I feel sorry for her, but she's not the first -- and certainly won't be the last -- to be a victim of circumstances. In a very real sense that is what we ALL are -- victims of LIFE -- if you want to look at it that way.

    Whom should I sue for the loss of my eyesight?

    Whom should I sue to get compensation for the focal dystonia that halted my career as a performing artist?

    Whom should my father have sued to get compensation for the paralytic stroke he suffered at age 44 that ruined his life, destroyed my mother's security, left them without a sex life for he duration of their marriage, and cast a dark shadow over my formative years and beyond?

    Whom should my Cousin Ruth have sued for compensation when she -- a lifelong vicim of infantile paralysis from the age of four -- was mugged, knocked unconscious, and robbed of everything she had with her while she was trying to do her job?

    Life is NOT and never WILL be FAIR.

    So I say to Nurse Pham SUCK iT UP, just do your best to cope with your situation, use whatever resources you have left no matter how limited, quit whining, and get on with whatever may be left of the rest of your life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree wholeheartedly. But the government NEVER takes responsibility for the problems it "consciously" creates.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Whom should I sue for the loss of my eyesight?

      Whom should I sue to get compensation for the focal dystonia that halted my career as a performing artist?


      Did those result from actions or omissions of actions on the part of your employers?

      Delete
    3. Not the point, AOW. LIFE metes out severe, terribly unfair punishment to innocent people ALL THE TIME.

      This modern notion -- socialist in origin, I'm sure -- that "someone" always must be made to pay for the results of our BAD LUCK or STUPIDITY is for the wazooks.

      Bumper Stickers:

      LIFEis a TERMINAL DISEASE

      LIFE is s MINEFIELD

      LIFE is UNENDING PUNISHMENT

      LIFE is a LOTTERY

      LIFE is a LOSING PROPOSITION

      LIFE is TORTURE

      That's not cynicism, that's being realistic.

      Here's a motto for you:

      GIVE EVERYTHING to LIFE;
      EXPECT NOTHING in RETURN,
      but LOSS, HEARTACHE, GRIEF,
      INJUSTICE, DISEASE and DEATH

      Delete
    4. FT,
      I stand by what I said.

      Life is indeed a minefield, but an employer has the responsibility to execute due diligence in certain matters.

      Nurses enter into contracts, literal or implied, and both the nurses and their employers have responsibilities. Period.

      Giving her a paper gown and a joke of mask was negligence on the part of the employer. Furthermore, it's not as if nurses can go out and buy their own biohazard suits.

      This modern notion -- socialist in origin, I'm sure -- that "someone" always must be made to pay for the results

      You know me better than to accuse me of believing that!

      Delete
  3. Let it be decided on the merits of the case. Was the hospital negligent.

    This woman provided a valuable service and has apparently suffered for it.
    Why deny her just comensation if it is established that the hospital is negligent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why make the hospital liable for a feckless government policy? Let her sue the CDC, NIH and State Department for faulty protocols and reckless endangerment?

      Delete
    2. THANK YOU, FJ!!!

      Obviously, Canardo either did not read -- or more likely -- deliberately failed to appreciate what I wrote above, abominable leftist proglodyte that he is and ever shall be.

      Such people WILL be the death of us. They are like a virus that once ingested eats your vital organs from within and works relentlessly to destroy them one by one making you utterly miserable until you LONG for the DEATH their toxic presence has made inevitable in you.

      If that description sounds suspiciously like CANCER, so be it. The parallel is apt.

      Delete
    3. So Farmer John with his extensive experience in public health decides where negligence lies?

      In your pathological drive to blame the government for all ills you may have gone a little too far.

      I would also ask Freethinker why his thinks his autocratic pronouncements are some kind of gospel.Get a clue man, you're just a freaking bozo on this bus like the rest of us.

      Delete
    4. Why AOW permits you to stay here and insult the intelligence of her guests with your stinking sneers, snide remarks and palpable, tediously predictable prevarication I'll never understand. You wouldn't last more than ten seconds at my place talking the way you do here -- and especially at Who's Your Daddy and Western Hero.

      I'm too goddam old to bother putting up with snotty little essheads like you any longer.

      Of course, I have a great advantage because I no longer give a damn what anyone thinks of me. I know who I am, and I know WHAT you are, and I'm not afraid to say it. I don't care whether I'm hated, reviled or even persecuted anymore. The fact is -- in the plainest possible English -- that YOU STINK to HIGH HEAVEN.

      Delete
    5. Duck,
      Texas Presbyterian Hospital has already issued a statement about possible settlement outside of court.

      Delete
    6. FT and Duck,
      Wow! Bad day, huh?

      I have to wonder if any of us actually ever persuade someone who is not like-minded to reconsider one's position in the slightest.

      Just sayin'.

      Delete
    7. NEVER! And I am fed up sick and tried of trying. So, instead of making an effort to be "persuasive," or "diplomatic," I'm just going to tell people off from now on.

      You can't "reason" with a poisonous snake or a tiger about to jump on your from a tree branch, so it's best to StAY OUT of the JUNGLE.

      The mental climate one encounters in the blogosphere day after day after day is a pernicious sort of influence that makes intelligent people develop suicidal tendencies and turns weak-minded people into homicidal maniacs.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could Nurse Pham find an attorney to sue the federal government?

    ReplyDelete
  7. See the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    I don't pretend to understand all the legalese in the above. Maybe somebody here can interpret the above link? Does it mean that Nurse Pham cannot sue the CDC, NIH and State Department?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your comment above on the futility of suing the government. Impossible. My statement was rhetorical.

      The Feral Government can crush you, your family, destroy your property and do damn well whatever tickles it evil fancy, and there's not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

      Meanwhile, Obama's gargoyles at the IRS gang audit conservatives and craft a program to give 'refunds' to illegal immigrants who haven't earned them.

      Nina Pham should consider herself lucky that she was merely an accidental victim. Had Uncle Sam set his sights on her for deliberate action, she would no doubt be even worse off. She should probably just shut her mouth before a Democrat Party bagman disappears her.

      Delete
  8. FT,
    She's a fool even to DREAM of having children under the circumstances. It would be selfish and unfair -- to those unborn babies.

    Maybe so. However, remember that Nina Pham is only 26 years old. At that age, her dream of having a family doesn't die on the basis of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't believe she has been told she shouldn't have children by a doctor; She's also not even married yet (not that that matters anymore)...
    I suppose it's difficult for her not to worry and she has every right to hope for a child if she wants one, but I think this is a lot of 'readiness for a lawsuit'...."let's see, how many things could I mention that might have been affected by the Ebola I shouldn't have caught?" See what I mean, AOW?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      Thus is the essence of a civil action. Toss in everything -- including the kitchen sink -- to see what sticks.

      I don't know she's been told about having children. The text of the law suit is sealed, I think. Do we even know that amount of the law suit?

      Delete
  10. If Nina Pham had refused to take care of the patient, would she ever have been hired by another hospital? I don't know the ins and outs of what nurses are required to do by their contracts. Does anyone here know those specifics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone has the right to quit his job. Better to scrub floors for a living than put up with high-handed tyrannical policies from a bureaucracy at a good paying job. I am sorry the girl got sick, but she handled the whole thing STUPIDLY from the get go. I stand by everything I said above.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Better to scrub floors for a living than put up with high-handed tyrannical policies from a bureaucracy at a good paying job.

      I must disagree.

      Here's why....

      As one two twice walked away from intolerable jobs only to take serious financial hits from which we in this household have never recovered, I must say that I understand a 23 year old person's reticence to do the same.

      I was in my 20's the first time I walked away, in my 40's the second time.

      If not for family resources and my total lack of debt -- What resources does Nina Pham have? Does she have debts resulting from her years of nurse's education? -- I would be living in government-subsidized housing.

      As for she handled the whole thing STUPIDLY from the get go, as the saying goes "You can't put an old head on young shoulders."

      I suspect that Texas Presbyterian will settle. We shall see.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      I don't quite understand what you mean by she handled the whole thing STUPIDLY from the get go.

      Delete
    4. IF she was aware that was being assigned to treat a case of Ebola, and presumably, because of her medical education she must have known the nature of the disease, it really and truly WAS just plain STUPID to accept the assignment. LIVING in severely straightened circumstances is a helluva lot better than becoming an INVALID or being DEAD.

      Now IF the hospital in some way TRICKED or DECEIVED her into taking the assignment not being fully informed what she was up against THAT would be a different matter and CERTAINLY grounds for her to sue the bejesus out of that hospital.

      Delete
    5. FT,
      Do nurses get to pick and choose their assignments? Not that I know of.

      Nina Pham might well have been brought up on civil rights changes if she had refused that man as her patient.

      presumably, because of her medical education she must have known the nature of the disease

      Not necessarily. I'd have to ask a nurse what the education is regarding Ebola. Nurses who serve with Doctors without Borders receive certain information. But domestically-based nurses? I doubt it.

      As I said in a comment above: Giving Nurse Pham a paper gown and a joke of mask was negligence on the part of the employer -- and violated the contract, literal or implied. Furthermore, it's not as if nurses can go out and buy their own biohazard suits!

      (continued below)

      Delete
    6. FT,
      IF the hospital in some way TRICKED or DECEIVED her into taking the assignment not being fully informed what she was up against THAT would be a different matter and CERTAINLY grounds for her to sue the bejesus out of that hospital.

      According to the text of the law suit and what I've been able to glean from several nurses whom I personally know, she was led to believe that the gown and mask provided to her protected her. Clearly, they did not. Also, she received no specialized training from the hospital so that. Nurses were begging for those training sessions, but those sessions were never offered.

      Nurses here in the United States have never before dealt with a disease such as Ebola.

      Delete
  11. Nurses in Texas have no true advocacy system in place when it is the one against the corporation. Hospitals have "shared governance" with nurses, which is a bit of a false flag operation to keep a union at bay - albeit the Texas nurse practice act forbids it. But an individual nurse with a concern may run the possibility of being labelled a trouble maker. Six months later, and with a pile of B.S. paperwork accrued, the nurse can find herself with a box to empty her locker and an escort to the front door. We do not have anyone to watch our individual backs and represent our interests.

    Hospital corporations can be monopolies in big areas like Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth. So a nurse who is blackballed at one facility will have difficulty finding employment elsewhere.

    Nurses tend to be altruistic. In the past, a nurse would rarely consider suing her employer. This lawsuit will send shock waves through the industry. Ms. Pham has a lawsuit that will never go to court. A jury will side with her. The hospital provided improper gear early on, slipshod guidance, and nursing shifts which were fatiguing for the level of care required. Ms. Pham needs compensation and also income to meet her future healthcare needs. I do not doubt the secondary effects of her treatment. Her life has been saved. But her life span may be significantly shortened.

    Nurse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nurse,
      Thank you for weighing in from a nurse's perspective.

      This lawsuit will send shock waves through the industry.

      Shock waves needed, I think because of improper gear early on, slipshod guidance, and nursing shifts which were fatiguing for the level of care required.

      I wonder what the costs of her future healthcare needs will be. Nobody yet knows the long-term effects of the drugs which saved Nina Pham's life.

      Delete
    2. That's good information to know, though sad.
      I think ALTRUISM is pretty much gone from generations after ours....and you're right about nurses having it....

      If what you say is right and she could have a shortened lifespan, and she does need money for future healthcare needs, she needs to sue.

      Delete
  12. I firmly and completely believe if a Republican were President, not a one of the commenters above would be blaming them for the Ebola mess.

    She should sue that TEXAS hospital. They handled the situation terribly.

    But, since it's TEX-ASS, none of you cares will dare speak ill of it.

    Sleazy.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMJ,
      Read the comments before hurling your insults! Clearly what you are asserting, since it's TEX-ASS, none of you cares will dare speak ill of it, is untrue. Several here have argued in favor of the law suit, and I am one of those people.

      Delete
    2. I knew it wouldn't take long for an Obama-worshipping proglodyte to come in here and self-flatuate in mock outrage.

      Obama let Mr. Ebola in from an Ebola hot Zone, so its Obama's fault. He's in charge, so he's responsible.

      I love how the mere mention of Texas drives the leftwing loonies into a sputtering, rage-filled bout of the screaming meemies.

      Texas, that conservative bastion that proved impervious to the predations of Chairman Obamao's stinking, sagging economy.

      Delete
    3. Jersey, old buddy, are you EVER going to stop rushing in like a bull in a china shop trying to wreak havoc when you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

      All this accomplishes is for you to make yourself look foolish, thoughtless, ham-fisted and unduly belligerent.

      I don't know whether it's just an act or merely a bad habit, but I do know that you do yourself a great injustice by perpetually presenting yourself in a bad light.

      I KNOW you're smarter than that, so why not drop the act, and start acting like a fully developed adult human being?

      And by that i do not mean you ought to agree with everything your political opponents say, just be a little more REASONABLE, less hot-headed, and try to be POLITE about stating your case.

      Delete
    4. "I firmly and completely believe if a Republican were President" this wouldn't be an issue!

      Delete
    5. @FT,

      "Jersey, old buddy, are you EVER going to stop rushing in like a bull in a china shop trying to wreak havoc when you don't know what the hell you are talking about?"

      The concept of [circumspect] is either unknown or ignored by he of whom you speak , over and over.

      Delete
    6. FT,
      I'm losing patience with JMJ.

      As you know, I have no problem with dissent.

      But rudeness? And acting in an unduly belligerent manner? Both of those wear thin on me -- and on the other blog administrators here.

      I have not welcomed JMJ as you have. Fine. But I certainly have not started the salvos. He has. If he is to continue commenting here, he needs to develop some manners. Let him show that he is capable of better than hurling insults.

      Delete
  13. I don't know why I didn't see this before: read a copy of the law suit itself HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Sovereign immunity in the United States is the legal privilege by which the American federal, state, and tribal governments cannot be sued (sovereign immunity). "

    I've often wondered how much this serves to buttress irresponsible government? It must serve as a 'God send' for the likes of B.O.!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there no way to oppose and possibly discontinue this absurdly unfair abuse of our constitutionally protected liberties?

      It gives the government carte blanche to play the despot with impunity.

      Do you know when this perversion of democratic republic's structure was instituted? I'd be surprised if it's embedded in our founding documents.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective