Posted on 11/24/2007 5:16:09 AM PST by Salena Zito
No.
BTW< when the prosecuter at the trial tried to use a similar argument to yours in suggesting Davila could get an infection, the doctor’s response clearly put that in a secondary cause category, treating it entirely differently from the direct causal relationship between the shooting and renal failure if not treated.
IN case you are still going to make your lame argument. Read the testimony, it will become clear what the difference is.
Interpret it how you want. I gave examples.
Perhaps you should read the context of the posts instead of rewriting my words from a thesaurus.
"He needed a catheter to drain, and surgery to fix the life-threatening problem."(emphasis added)"... the guy would have life-threatening injuries from the shooting which required extensive surgery."
"...Davila had life-threatening injuries that required special surgery."
"I’ve shown that the medical doctors testified his injury was life-threatening, required specialized surgery (with a second doctor who was an expert)"
Those statements are ALL inaccurate. Simple English. The catheter was required to avoid renal failure. NO surgery was required at all for his plumbing--let alone to "fix a life-threatening injury."
In fact, OAD still hadn't even HAD the surgery as of the time of the trial. (The only "surgery" he had was to remove a bullet from his thigh.) And when the appointment came up for him to have surgery on October 25, 2005, he was off trafficking drugs for which he is now indicted!
I would think that would be clear to anyone but, given your posts on this thread, I have serious doubts.
17 Q. Okay. So the urethra is no longer intact? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And the -- what happens if the urethra is not intact? 20 A. The patient is unable to urinate, and they actually will 21 have back pressure, and potential back pressure into the 22 kidneys, if they're unable to urinate. 23 Q. Okay. What do you mean by that? 24 A. The bladder fills, they get a pressure sensation, as though 25 they have to urinate, but cannot. And that pressure will be 1 transmitted back to the kidneys over time. 2 Q. Okay. And, over time, then, what would happen to the 3 kidneys? 4 A. Anybody that actually was obstructed for that period of 5 time could potentially have some acute renal failure. 6 Q. Okay. And is that a life-threatening problem? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What about infection? 9 A. Infection, because you're not draining your bladder system, 10 is there. It's a possibility. But the renal failure, or the 11 back pressure and the discomfort, is going to be the number one 12 things. 13 Q. Okay. And what about bladder rupture? 14 A. Bladder rupture is unusual, to actually see that, because 15 most people are going to present with something as far as pain 16 and discomfort before that. Is it a possibility? It's always 17 a possibility, but it would be very rare.
It’s right there in front of you, and yet you cannot understand.
For example, when the prosecuter asked about bladder rupture, the doctor said it was unusual. Why? Because way before that happened, the pain would be intense enough that the patient would come in and get treated.
In the same manner, infection is a possibility, but again the pain would usually lead to treatment, so that was the big thing.
You act as if people are born with a catheter. Your statement is that because he recieved treatment, his injury wasn’t life-threatening. That’s like saying that my father’s heart condition wasn’t life-threatening because they caught it and treated it before it killed him.
Even if you can’t see your illogic, I hope others can, but given the audience I have serious doubts.
How would Davila empty his bladder if he didn’t have a catheter? He wouldn’t. If he didn’t, what would happen? potential Renal failure. Note also the doctor’s use of the term “over THAT period of time”. The doctor assumes that eventually, the pain would drive the patient to treatment, and therefore indicates a “period of time” he thinks it’s possible they would go without treatment. If the patient NEVER got treatment, they would die, it’s not just a “possibility”, but the doctor cannot imagine a patient not getting treatment at some point.
The injury was life-threatening. Treatment was necessary to remove the life-threatening risk caused by the injury.
The infection was not considered as serious a risk since again there was the time issue related to the pain that would be caused by a full bladder.
Your continued insistance that the injury was not life-threatening, or that the doctor didn’t say the injury was life-threatening, is incorrect.
It wasn't. The catheter was (which was done in Mexico, long before he even had contact with U.S. authorities).
It's that simple.
Did he have renal failure? Was he denied a catheter, a simple medical procedure most often performed by nurses in the U.S.? Did he not have the catheter put in immediately following his injury, thereby eliminating any risk of renal failure?
Don't bother responding. If you won't see the difference after 100 posts, you never will.
The problem was life-threatening. The problem required surgery to fix.
The catheter is not a “fix”, it treats the symptom.
Here, try this, maybe you’ll understand. Your pipe is leaking in the basement. I say “the leak is flood-threatening, and requires sealing to fix”.
Of course, until you get someone to fix the pipe, you COULD turn off the water, or you could put a bucket down to collect the water, and a pump to pump it out of the basement.
But that wouldn’t mean it doesn’t take a plumber to fix the problem.
You are confusing the objects of the sentence. “life-threatening” is an adjective, the problem is the noun, and “fix” applies to “problem”, not “life-threatening”.
We already agree that the problem, if not treated, was life-threatening. He needed immediate attention (the catheter to drain). In order to FIX the problem, he needed surgery.
And even with surgery there was a chance he’d never be completely fixed.
You are like Sharpova’s little dog, yapping “you come on”. English isn’t all that hard. My statement is completely correct. There is no error in the statement.
Maybe you don’t understand the word “fix”, or the concept of repairing a problem. If you turn off your toilet because it is running, and turn it on when you want to flush, you haven’t really fixed it, you’ve just mitigated the consequences. You still need to do a repair to fix a problem, and it would be foolish to say someone was lying if they said you needed a repair job to fix the problem because you could turn the valve off and on.
Again, and for the last time. The injuries were “life-threatening”. That is an accurate reflection of the facts, as testified to by the doctor.
And the injuries required surgery to FIX. If you don’t do surgery, you can’t fix it. It requires surgery to fix.
If I had said “Davila required special surgery to save his life”, your argument would have merit. But I didn’t say that, and all your boring repetition won’t change the fact that NONE of the quotes you give say that the surgery was required to save his life. All of them say the surgery was required to fix the problem.
Your are inaccurately claiming a necessity to FIX, where I said it was a necessity IN ORDER TO fix.
According to the doctor’s testimony, the operation would be delayed 6-9 months, so it’s clear that fixing the problem was not necessary or time-sensitive. But since I never said it was, that’s irrelevant.
It’s also irrelevant that he didn’t HAVE additional surgery before the trial.
However, your complaint does reveal a grammatical ambiguity in my comments which I will correct. My use of the term “required” could be misconstrued to suggest that the surgery had taken place at the time the doctor was speaking. That was not my intent, nor was it my intent to speak to the surgery actually being done at all.
My use of the past tense was in reference to the time of the doctor’s testimony that surgery was required to fix the problem, NOT a reference to the surgery itself.
So while my grammar was correct, it could be misinterpreted, and I apologize if the use of the past tense made you think I was refering to a surgery that had taken place already.
Anyway, it is clear from testimony that a) the bullet wound was life-threatening, and required treatment in order to mitigate the threat to his life. b) The bullet wound would require surgery to fix, and that surgery would require special skill (the doctor said he wouldn’t do the procedure and that there was only three places he would recommend for the procedure).
I really don’t see how either of those statements is controversal, or why you insist on arguing against them since they are both accurate and irrelevant to your stated goal of getting the BP agents cleared of the charges.
And just to be complete, the surgery he did have was both to remove a fragment of the bullet, AND to explore and categorize the extent of the injuries so the doctor could determine the correct course of treatment. Your statement was incomplete.
Answered below. Summary: surgery IS required to fix the injury. And the injury was life-threatening. I never said surgery was required to save his life, nor is that in any way germaine to my purpose for providing the doctor’s testimony, which was to disabuse others of the notion that his injury was minor.
The catheter does not fix his problem, it treats a symptom. If you had this problem, and received a catheter, you would not consider yourself “fixed”, you would get the surgery to repair the problem.
More detail is above this post in another reply to your post.
Oh, and the jury has already stated that if Davila's drug arrests had not been supressed, the verdict would have been different. They were not given all the information.
The two of you delight in coming onto these threads and disrupting as you've been doing it for months.
Miller - Cross by Mr. Peters 209 6 Q. Okay. You also testified about the problems that can arise 7 to physiology when the urethra is not functioning. You talked 8 about pressure on kidneys, destruc- -- eventual destruction of 9 the kidneys, renal failure, infection. 10 Does the suprapubic tube alleviate those problems? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So, in fact, if a patient, or an individual who was 13 injured, received the type of medical treatment that this 14 individual received in Mexico, those problems of kidney failure 15 and so forth, those are alleviated. Those aren't really going 16 to happen, right? 17 A. Correct. I believe I said that.
No, he did not have renal failure, because he received treatment. Being treated does not change that characterization of the initial injury. That is so obvious I can’t think of how to make it clearer to you.
Starving is a life-threatening action. If you eat, you won’t starve, but that doesn’t make starving non-life-threatening.
Having your urethra cut off from your bladder is life-threatening. That you can be TREATED for it does not make it non-life-threatening. The treatment mitigates the threat.
If I said his life WAS in danger after the catheter, your argument would have some merit, but I never said that. If I said he needed surgery to save his life, your argument would have merit, but I didn’t say that.
When my son was born, he had a staph infection and pnemonia. I didn’t want to go home for the night if his life was in danger, so I asked the doctor if it was “life-threatening”. The doctor replied that his situation was life-threatening. So I said “what are the chances he’ll be alive in the morning”, and then the doctor understood my question, and told me that so long as he stayed under treatment, he would in all probability be fine.
Under your argument, the doctor lied to me when he said it was a life-threatening illness. But he didn’t, he was using the term precisely correctly. My son had a condition that, without treatment, could kill him.
In fact, under your argument, if I say my son had a life-threatening condition, you would consider that a lie because his life wasn’t in danger since he was getting treatment.
That’s about the 5th analogy I’ve used to prove the fallacy of your argument. I hope it’s sinking in by now that I am on firm footing, and you are not.
As a person who tends to fix symptoms, not problems, I am an expert at the difference between the two. “fix” has a clear meaning. A catheter is not a fix. Repairing the tube so it works again is a fix.
You wouldn’t HAVE a thread if it wasn’t for us. There’s only so much mutual admiration and visceral hatred for others that you can use to sustain a conversation. We provide an object for your madness. :-)
Yes, we both agree on that. I guess that’s something.
They took a cystogram and urethragram and performed a cystoscopy. Neither of these are surgical.
Perhaps you can point me to some support for your comment? In the interest of "completeness" and all.
How accommodating for you to admit that you are just disruptors. The mods aren't too keen on that.
cowgirl, you are wasting bandwidth trying to explain, AGAIN, to CW, the inner workings of the case. He has no desire to be informed. He is amusing himself with disrupting R&C threads. I've decided to save this thread so that I can post a link to it from the next time CW disrupts and says the same things all over again on a different R&C thread.
Glutton for punishment? ;-)
The testimony is clear on this point. I don't know if anesthesia was necessary for the tests they performed, nor do I really care.
volume%208.pdf, starting from page 187.
Q. Okay. And could you explain how he presented, what the 11 purpose of the treatment was?
12 A. I was actually only involved when they got to the operating
13 room. And reading the chart at that point, knowing that there
14 was an injury, gunshot, through the buttocks. And the main
15 reason he was there was to look at the genitourinary system and
16 to retrieve what felt, and by imaging, was a round that was
17 lodged in his right thigh.
according to the doctor, the MAIN reason he was in the surgical room having an operation was to look at the genitourinary sustem AND to retrieve a round.
So long as you agree that these two things happened, I don't really care about your petty argument over the term "surgery".
He was under anesthesia... or maybe not. Yep... that just about covers all your options.
Tests they performed? i.e. NOT surgery? Well, well, well!
14 was an injury, gunshot, through the buttocks. And the main
15 reason he was there was to look at the genitourinary system and
Keep reading! "Looking" is not surgery. Pesky little details.
So long as you agree that these two things happened, I don't really care about your petty argument over the term "surgery".
Ahhh... such a seeker of truth! So you admit he didn't have surgery but now you consider it "petty." And the credibility continues to diminish....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.