Florida Man Sues Over Being Denied a Hair Transplant

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[thanatopsis_awry]

Swim (and others), have made some fine points; and I was vauge in my initial post. (which, to clarify, is that I do agree/say that the current legal standing needs to be altered by even more regulation and law; the fact that *this* is the course that needs to be taken is one reason why it is so essential to practice prudence and judiciousness when dealing with law, political and otherwise).

 

Consider the following truths:

 

A man can not be denied a HT because he is HIV positive.

 

A man can be denied a HT because he presents an emminent, outstandingly unique risk to both the doctor *and* non-doctor within the private business.

 

He is being denied the HT because of the latter; the former (his HIV) is incidental, and he is *not* being denied treatment *simply*/*solely*/*singularly* because he is HIV positive. Just as if he had cancer; he would be neither denied nor accepted for treatment based upon his disability.

 

Consider the following situation:

 

I have Disease Y; Disease Y makes me unable to control bodily functions, and my body spasmodically lashes out regardless of my intent. A doctor denies me because of the unique threat I pose as a result of my spasmodic lashing out, which I can't contain.

 

Disease Y (which could be replaced with "depression" and many other permutations of "disease" and resulting effect) does not have the politicaly-charged backing of HIV, however; and I suspect the thousands of people who suffer from various ailments covered by the umbrella of the DisabilityAct live with their disabilities accordingly.

 

Also, he himself has consented to the fact that he represents a unique, heightened threat. He was initially told that any potential surgery would need to be discussed by the non-doctor staff, and that extra charges could be needed due to extraordinary efforts being required to potentially create a *unique* environment for such a *unique* risk. He was copacetic with this.

[swim]

.

[Curious]

Just because there is a statute that may require the doctor to perform the surgery doesn't mean it's constitutional and that it would survive a legal challenge. In a country founded upon the principle of freedom, it's tyrannical to require a physician to operate upon someone whose life is not in danger.

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[Curious]

You are not addressing the right of the other party, the doctor. The doctor has legal rights too and I'd make a fair sized bet he will win this case. Since when is a doctor required to place his life at risk by performing cosmetic surgery on someone with a fatal disease.

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[swim]

.

[miked]

I will just say one more thing and I will leave I promise ...I will leave you guys continue if you want.

 

 

hehe

 

All I'll say is America is truly great. Another country and that HIV positive guy may be confined to a leper colony type institution awaiting death like they did in Cuba during the early outbreaks.

 

Bottom line - A doctor who practices HT can never know for sure whether or not a patient is HIV positive. He must therefore practice each and every day as if they were, and pray each time they get pricked that the patient does not have any sinister virus.

 

Having said that, if I were the Doctor or a member fo his staff I would have no problem practicing on someone who is "potentially" but also unlikely to be HIV positive. Once the condition is known, however, i would be very nervous when the blood starts flying. I may even decide that the fear of knowing is too much for me to keep a steady hand.

 

A doctor should have the right in cases like these to recuse themselves when they are not comfortable. My 2 cents.

[Dr. William Lindsey]

There are more issues to this than I have seen brought up in the quick scan of this post.

 

First, we treat all patients as if they are infected with blood born diseases. Meaning that we use gloves and proper technique to insure PATIENT, Doctor, and Staff safety. Every health care practice should be doing that to all patients.

 

Second, I have done probably 10 facelifts on HIV positive patients. BUT, I wanted their infectious disease doctor to state that their immune system was strong enough to protect from infections that a normal immune system would fight off easily. The goal of surgery, and in particular, cosmetic surgery (including hair) is to take a person and make them have an improvement...not to infect them or make them worse.

 

The story of this plaintiff doesn't go into the details. Maybe or maybe not that the doc wanted Infectious disease clearance prior to agreeing to do the case, and maybe or maybe not that the patient did or didn't want to have that. I have had a couple of HIV or hepatitis patients who wouldn't go and see their docs and I refused to do their surgery. I felt that if they didn't want to take responsibility to make sure they were in good enough health for me to operate on that I didn't want to accept responsibility for their health either. Same with maybe 50 patients who wouldn't go see their cardiologist prior to me agreeing to do their surgery. Doctors have responsibility but so do patients!!

 

Third, I honestly don't know if hair surgery outcomes would be impaired by a compromised immune system. I am honest with potential hair patients with HIV+ and tell them that it may be less likely to work as well as in an HIV- patient. Unlike a facelift, in which really there is only about a week of potential time period that a problem could occur that would jeopardize the patient or outcome (meaning that if they make it through the first week they should get a great result, the procedure is done) a hair transplant takes a good 6 months to start working! What if during that time the immune system being compromised allowed a subclinical infection around the grafts that noone could see but dramatically altered hair growth??

 

Who knows, but I think it is a valid discussion point and may make the patient less likely to want to proceed in that case.

 

This thread could take on a life of its own with all of the potential issues involved. But there may be more to the story than that news item says.

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

[Dr. William Lindsey]

And remember, hair and cosmetic surgery are a luxury item. It is important for the patient to understand the risks and limitations, known and potentially unknown(as I speculate above on healing).

 

Whereas with many disease processes, surgery must be done regardless of whether HIV status may or may not alter healing. An example is that patients with organ transplants are immunosuppressed (not too dissimilar to HIV) and as a result they often get more skin cancers. I have taken oodles of skin cancers off of a handful of transplant patients. Anecdotally, I have observed variations in healing in patients whose transplant meds were "not as in control" as the same patients at other times. So I am convinced, but can not prove, that immune compromise can alter healing; and in hair which takes so long to grow in, I am not sure that it can't make or break a case result.

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

[Bill - Seemiller]

Great points Dr. Lindsey, thanks for sharing.

 

It goes to show that without the missing details, drawing any conclusions, especially on a case like this would be premature.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[thanatopsis_awry]

Well said, Dr. Lindsey; very good points, indeed.

 

On a side note, anyone know why "swim" suddenly erased all of his many posts in this thread?

[swim]

I didn't want to aid the doctor nor the plaintiff. I said more or less what Dr.Lindsey said.

 

Bill contacted me and told me that my conduct of removing them was not proper. I see his point and I leave it up to him to restore or not my posts. I give him my consent to do so if he thinks that is in the interest of this forum.

 

I shall avoid controversial topics in future and swim up stream.

 

My regards

 

Swim