Sedation Deaths

[CCCSD]

Burn ointment on your list..?

 

[Akulahawk]

Messing about with Ketamine outside of RSI is how malpractice lawyers make money and how entire hospitals go broke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still considered an off label use?

Using Ketamine in RSI is an off label use.

Simply because a medication is used "off label" does not necessarily mean that medication is not generally accepted for that off-label use. In the case of Ketamine, it is widely accepted for use in the setting of procedural sedation. It is also quite useful for pain relief. An isomer of Ketamine, known as esketamine, is FDA approved in the treatment of resistant depression.

The FDA does not regulate medicine. That is not the function of the FDA.

Being ACLS certified doesn't mean you're an expert in ACLS. It simply means you're ACLS certified. It also doesn't mean you're actually capable.

 

[proctorologist]

Using Ketamine in RSI is an off label use.

Simply because a medication is used "off label" does not necessarily mean that medication is not generally accepted for that off-label use. In the case of Ketamine, it is widely accepted for use in the setting of procedural sedation. It is also quite useful for pain relief. An isomer of Ketamine, known as esketamine, is FDA approved in the treatment of resistant depression.

The FDA does not regulate medicine. That is not the function of the FDA.

Being ACLS certified doesn't mean you're an expert in ACLS. It simply means you're ACLS certified. It also doesn't mean you're actually capable.

Using a medication off label might be generally accepted but where it goes wrong there is strict liability merely because the FDAs failure to approve the medication for that purpose is considered to put a reasonable practitioner on notice that the medication might not be safe and effective for that particular purpose such that when it goes wrong it becomes res Ipsa loquitur liability.

Also, an investigator of any kind isn't an expert - in that we don't testify as to issues of opinion, but rather we testify only to facts able to be determined based upon the way the book says it is to be done.

 

[CCCSD]

Using a medication off label might be generally accepted but where it goes wrong there is strict liability merely because the FDAs failure to approve the medication for that purpose is considered to put a reasonable practitioner on notice that the medication might not be safe and effective for that particular purpose such that when it goes wrong it becomes res Ipsa loquitur liability.

Also, an investigator of any kind isn't an expert - in that we don't testify as to issues of opinion, but rather we testify only to facts able to be determined based upon the way the book says it is to be done.

So you DON’T know anything about EMS et al except what you’ve read.
Got it.

 

[Akulahawk]

It is

Using a medication off label might be generally accepted but where it goes wrong there is strict liability merely because the FDAs failure to approve the medication for that purpose is considered to put a reasonable practitioner on notice that the medication might not be safe and effective for that particular purpose such that when it goes wrong it becomes res Ipsa loquitur liability.

Also, an investigator of any kind isn't an expert - in that we don't testify as to issues of opinion, but rather we testify only to facts able to be determined based upon the way the book says it is to be done.

It is when a medication is used in an off-label manner that isn't in any accepted use that a medical practitioner becomes a test pilot, so to speak, for that medication. In that instance a more strict liability case can be made. Since the FDA doesn't regulate medicine, failure of the FDA to accept a medication for a given purpose doesn't mean that med cannot be used for an off label reason. Zofran is a great example. Use in non-chemo patients is off label, yet it's is a first line medication in nausea/vomiting cases in many emergency departments. Using a medication in an FDA on-label manner also doesn't guarantee safety nor absolves the practitioner from ensuring the medication is appropriate in that instance. It's entirely possible for FDA approved meds used for their on-label indications to have very adverse interactions, even when each med is otherwise appropriately prescribed.

When a med is used off label, yes it does make the defendant have a slightly increased burden as they have to show that the med is accepted for a given purpose and that it was given according to generally accepted practice for that med. At that point the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff to show where the harm came from.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Using a medication off label might be generally accepted but where it goes wrong there is strict liability merely because the FDAs failure to approve the medication for that purpose is considered to put a reasonable practitioner on notice that the medication might not be safe and effective for that particular purpose such that when it goes wrong it becomes res Ipsa loquitur liability.

Once again, this is completely untrue.

Every time you repeat the same lie, you reinforce the fact that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ffemt8978]

Once again, this is completely untrue.

Every time you repeat the same lie, you reinforce the fact that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

But he's an "ACLS certified medicolegal investigator - Tragos, Sartes, and Tragos at clearwater FL.". Apparently injury law firms are now teaching ACLS and other medical courses

 

[CCCSD]

But he's an "ACLS certified medicolegal investigator - Tragos, Sartes, and Tragos at clearwater FL.". Apparently injury law firms are now teaching ACLS and other medical courses

You forgot Fan of the Windward Passage, per his username.