To: TheOldLady; Jonty30
The second autopsy usually find things that the ordinary corners miss.First,you are dealing with politicians who have an MD after their name. They also dealing with many other deceased people that hava also died. Your case is not getting their full attention. The problem with second autopsies its that you have to pay out of pocket for it.
posted on 04/08/2012 8:07:09 PM PDT
(Time is like a river made up of events which happen,and its currents is strong;no sooner its swept)
To: U-238; Jonty30
I don't know about Jonty, but in my case, my dear MIL died in 1996, and there was going to be no autopsy since she was a heart patient. It was assumed that her heart gave out.
Our concern was whether her replacement valve was the cause, and we considered the money well spent to set our minds at ease about her, and infuriate us about the death doctor.
She started to have the same symptoms that triggered her valve replacement surgery and went to the doctor to ask for treatment and possible replacement of her worn-out (she thought) pig valve. The death doctor told her that all her organs were shutting down and that the surgery would kill her.
That turned out to be a steaming pile of his crappy opinion, for he never ran a test.
Her autopsy showed that she was otherwise perfectly healthy except that her other valve, the one God gave her, was the thing that killed her. In the opinion of the medical examiner, she would not only have survived the surgery, but also regained her health as much as any 67 year-old person would.
We didn't sue, but that doctor will get his just desserts in another Court.
posted on 04/09/2012 3:04:39 AM PDT
(FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson