http://www.wftv.com/news/6253589/detail.html

WTF. So the woman gives birth, has no arms or legs, and when she asks what the hell happened.. "Oh, we can't tell you that. You're asking for information that would violate other patients' rights."

omg, thats horrible.

i thought tss was only in tampons? or can you get it from something else?

TSS happens most often to women who use tampons. But men, elder and young women, children can get TSS. That's why its not called Tampon Shock Syndrome.

That's just screwed. The flesh-eating (I think) bacteria is most of the time contracted in the hospital. That's why she was amputated I think. The hospital was probably responsible for that flesh-eating thing that's why they won't tell her where she caught the eating thing and why they needed to amputate the hands and legs, besides for the fact that it was flesh-eating. If they did, she can sue and the hospital will have to pay. With the strep thing, that is just bull. End of story.

Haha, Tampon Shock Syndrome.

I think that's horrible. You'd think they'd at least consult her before they chopped her arms and legs off. Them saying that she'd have to sue them to get answers just tells you that they effed something up. I wouldn't be able to deal with that if I was her. I would be so depressed, I feel bad for her.

What the hell. That is so horrible I don't exactly know how to respond to that.

Wow, I'd be pissed if that happened to me.
That is terrible.

thats it? lol i would be ballistic. thats sad though. i hope they tell her and then she wins her courtcase.

Oh my. Waking up and figuring out that you're armless/legless and you've just given birth. Poor woman. How can you do that and not tell them the full story? I hope that she wins that case.

SUE THE FREAKIN HOSPITAL!
that's my two cents.

but seriously, her body must be seriously worn out. she just gave birth and then she became a basketcase in less than 2 weeks. oh, and i have a question that needs clarification. don't patients usually have to sign consent forms for surgeries? maybe i watch too much grey's anatomy & house.

Dang, this is really wrong.
I would be SO FREAKING PISSED OFF at the hospital if they did this to me. I'd definitely go and sue them.
Man, I feel so bad for this poor woman.

actualy its called implied consent if its lifethreating the hospital reserves the right to operate on you.
but then there are also some places that have partial implied consent in which they go to the husband or immediate family member ask ask them to sign a consent form on their behalf.

QUOTE(a painefull euphoria @ Jan 31 2007, 10:53 PM)

actualy its called implied consent if its lifethreating the hospital reserves the right to operate on you.
but then there are also some places that have partial implied consent in which they go to the husband or immediate family member ask ask them to sign a consent form on their behalf.

Can't those implied consent be vetoed by......erhmm.... I don't know what they're called. I job-shadowed a nurse, who worked in the ICU. Some patients signed this waiver that basically stated they didn't want to be saved if something goes wrong. I'm not sure if that applies to surgery, however.

dangg thats sad

This time gap is confusing, since the article doesn't fill it with any kind of useful information =|.

Then again, if she was affected with necrotzing fasciitis chances are that she spent those days under antibiotic treatment and/or went under surgery prior suffering the final amputation of her limbs. Keep in mind this affection has a mortality rate of 25% when treated properly, peeking at close to 98% when lacking proper medical attention.

Still, unless the Hospital is trying to cover its back from something along the lines of the patient becoming infected during the birth labor, there's no ethical reason to prevent the woman from seeing her medical records.

thats so sad
she wont even be able to hold her child
they should keep hospitals clean-er