Hospital injections?

**Full Intensity** · 01-08-2002, 11:22 PM

Now, i've been in and out of the hospital too many times this year, (a bad injury) and have had many needles in the glute, delt etc.... now they have injected everything from nubain, to demoral(spelling) and anything far and inbetween. My only question is how come they never ever (or atleast with me) aspirate ? What if they did inject fully into a vein? are they liable?

**bravo11p** · 01-08-2002, 11:31 PM

Yes, if you have an allergic reation to the medication. But both the hospital and the doctor are liable. It comes under the "Respondent Superior" law. To make you feel a bit better though, I worked in medicine for many years and gave thousands of injections and could aspirate so fast you would never know. I guess it comes with a lot of practice. It's also a "feel" to know if you have hit an artery or vein. During aspiration, you only really have to slightly pull back. If you hit an artery, the force of the blood in the artery would push blood into the stick forcefully. A vein is a bit different though but only a slight aspiration is needed.

**TNT** · 01-08-2002, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by bravo11p
Yes, if you have an allergic reation to the medication. But both the hospital and the doctor are liable. It comes under the "Respondent Superior" law . . .

It might help to explain what respondeat superior is so we see the picture better. It is not a law, but a principle which, from the Latin, means literally that the superior must respond. Functionally, the legal meaning is: The principal is liable for the acts of the agent, the master is responsible for the acts of the servant, the employer is liable for the acts of the employee.

Thus, you could sue in any adverse event, whether or not an allergic reaction. In fact, if you had an allergic reaction but had, on admission to the hospital, told the physician or nurse taking your history that you had no allergies, the hospital would not be liable for the allergic reaction. (To be negligent, one must have knowledge. The same principle applies to slipping in a supermarket. If a quart of milk falls to the floor and you slip on it, the market is only liable if they had knowledge of the conditions. If they were unaware of the spillage, they are not liable. If, however, someone had told an employee, "Hey, a quart of milk just broke open on the floor of the dairy aisle" and it had not yet been cleaned up, causing you to slip and fall, the market is liable. Even if it were the fault of the employee who did nothing about it, that's where respondeat superior comes into play. Since the employee was an agent of the store, the principal - the market itself - is liable.)

In the hypothetical injection situation, there are actually several potential defendants - the nurse or technician who gave the injection, the hospital (which employs the nurse), the physician (who ordered the injection) and, theoretically, the manufacturers of the drug that was being injected and the needle and syringe that were used (because they have "deep pockets" in the form of lots of assets and liability insurance). Why? Because you sue as many people as possible (suing "upward and outward"), knowing that if one or more of the defendants are dismissed, there will still be others left from which to collect.

Anyway, in the case of an injection, a hospital (and all others) may not be liable for an unknown allergy, or there may be partial liability (for example, the physician might be liable if he or she knew about it but didn't enter it into the chart, but the nurse would not be liable because he or she did not know about it at all). Even then, as with most lawsuits, there would likely be some type of settlement by all defendants - an insurer would rather pay you, say, $10,000 even if they are not liable than pay $25,000 in legal fees to prove in court they are not liable.

Now, to briefly address to Full Intensity's original question, bravo11p is correct: A medical professional can aspirate so quickly and efficiently that the patient most likely does not realize at all that there was an outward pull on the plunger. Chances are, FI, that the nurses did aspirate. But when you receive a delt or glute shot from someone else, chances also are that you are not looking at the needle go in - we tend to look away so we do not put up resistance. In fact, when an experienced professional does an injection, you will usually not feel anything - the insertion, the push, or the withdrawal - unless there is something in the medication itself (such as alcohol) that will cause a sensation.

Class dismissed.

**Full Intensity** · 01-09-2002, 08:57 AM

Excellent replies brothers! now I know thanks. When i get injections i have to watch the whole thing, but yes glute shots are very hard to watch cause without a mirror i don't think u can see it all. But when i get delt shots i have never seen them aspirate , maybe their like magic, afterall the hand is quicker then the eye.

Thanks

**bravo11p** · 01-09-2002, 10:51 AM

Thanks TNT, awesome explanation. I learned a lot from that one. Since Canada has socialized medicine, do they have a similar sort of principle?

**TNT** · 01-09-2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by bravo11p
Thanks TNT, awesome explanation. I learned a lot from that one. Since Canada has socialized medicine, do they have a similar sort of principle?

As an educated guess, I believe they do, since respondeat superior in both the U.S. and Canada is based on English common law.

On the other hand, Canada is not as litigation-happy as the U.S., with our "Sue the Bastards" mentality. (Did you ever notice how most commercials for personal injury attorneys are on in the afternoons during Springer/Montel/Ricki/etc., when someone with an injury is likely to be home, as well as late nights, when they are likely to have insomnia?)

Our Canuck experts might know better as to whether Canada has any built-in liability limitations in light of their socialized medicine. We could, of course, open a can of worms regarding whether the Canadian or U.S. medical system is better, and both sides would likely agree that it depends on whether you need immediate or elective medical care. (I can tell you, of course, that Canadian prescription prices are much better, which is why so many people from the States, especially seniors without prescription plans, head north of the border for their drugs.)

**bravo11p** · 01-09-2002, 03:00 PM

Good point. I never noticed the Personal Injury commercials being played at those particular times more than others but as I write this, I have seen 3 in the last ten minutes and it's almost time for Oprah. And yes, you are right TNT, it would be a major can of worms, A Pandora's box if you will about our varying practices of medicine. Though having a long medical background, I have to lean in favor of a better form of medical practice in the U.S. Well, maybe a more limited liability with insurance which is the root of evil as to why medical costs are through the roof. But thats my opinion. So to any of our Canadian bro's out there, please give me a brief description of Canadian Medicine. Also, do you have a choice in your medical provider, an average wait for elective procedures, etc. FI & TNT, thanks for this post, I am sure we will get some very interesting reading from it.