Quote:

The "caused by or consequence of" will need some work. Some consequences are the natural outcome of treatment. Some cancer treatments cause permanent hearing loss. The use of steroids can cause diabetes. Most severe burns result in infection.

Most severe burns result in infection as a result of the burn.

Quote:

You need to discriminate between natural complications that occur in a high percentage of patients receiving treatment,

Oh no I don't.

If someone accepts a treatment (e.g. for cancer) and one of the listed, disclosed and appropriately consented to, with full knowledge of the risks side effects is diabetes or hearing loss, then there's no issue. One can ALWAYS consent to a side effect, PROVIDED they are given full and fair disclosure.

However, if you tell someone that statins will reduce their risk of death by cardiovascular incident, DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE MEDIAN SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE IS FOUR DAYS, and they get DIABETES as a result of taking it, YOU OUGHT TO BE BBQ'D, SLATHERED IN SAUCE AND EATEN since your "disclosure" was a LIE.

If you manage to give someone MRSA in a hospital then you should NOT be able to bill them for the treatment of that secondary infection which they acquired while in your care, and in what you represented was a sterile operating theater with proper infectious agent control. Obviously it wasn't.

The BEST and FASTEST way to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired infections and similar horseshit is to align the interests of the customer and the hospital. If the hospital has to treat said secondary condition THAT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED AT ALL BUT FOR THEIR "TREATMENT" then they will for the FIRST TIME have an incentive to NOT let that happen.

Right now the incentive is FOR it to happen since they BILL YOU for the disease or condition THEY CAUSED.

That should be felonious assault -- at minimum.

----------