thrillerjesus wrote: funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure
fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.
That's what I put, but I thought the reasoning (assuming thats the correct answer) was bullshit. Just because dude is willing to risk a 25% chance of having a fucked hand, doesn't mean he'd be willing to take that same risk as well as an additional 25% risk of having a gimpy finger. That's 50% chance of some level of bad outcome, which seemed kind of a lot to me.
Didn't say it could be both. Could have been either or - it's like, maybe you either hit a nerve and you lose all hand function, or you hit the nerve and have a bent finger. Maybe not necessarily 50% all, but rather 25% either or. I don't know. I made it up.
I also did whatever someone else did and said consent mattered for battery but this was negligence, which is stupid in hindsight for me to think because obviously Dr. owes duty of disclosure yadda.
Whatever, fuck the MBE.
And fuck that mortgages. With them clogging the equity of redemption.