<p>If Duncan had survived, would his recovery have stirred up a wave of foreign ebola migrants seeking free medical care in the US? </p>
<p>I’m watching the CNN reporter criticize why Duncan didn’t receive experimental drugs right away like the American ebola patients did. It begs the question: to what extraordinary lengths of medical treatment are uninsured foreign patients entitled?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Upthread it was contended that insurance coverage doesn’t enter into treatment decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A hospital is obligated to render emergency treatment. It isn’t obligated to give you a free kidney transplant even if a doctor recommends it. </p>
<p>The U.S. government should make it very clear to the government of Liberia and to Duncan’s survivors that a lawsuit will serve no one’s best interests. In fact, couldn’t Duncan’s relatives find themselves sued by anyone whom becomes ill after interacting with they or Duncan? Use those resources instead on preparations to prevent this sad situation from re-occurring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. They not force him to come here and did not know of his exposure, as far as I can tell. </p>
<p>Now, if there are emails saying that he should come to get treatment, then they are complicit. </p>
<p>However, I do not get the no suit argument. If he (or they lied) to get here and knowingly exposed people, then the people who are negatively impacted (get sick) because of his (their) negligence should be able to sue.</p>
<p>There is no point in suing this family for anything. They don’t have any money and the quarantine people are basically homeless when their 21 days of quarantine in a gated community are over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is beginning to look like getting swift, high-quality medical care makes some difference in surviving Ebola. Might Duncan have survived if his first visit to ER had been handled properly? We’ll never know. But given that the entire medical world was on high alert, and especially given that the Texas Presbyterian doctors had just received CDC-mandated Ebola training, their bungling of the initial visit was inexcusable. It is entirely possible that the delay in treatment contributed to his death. Why shouldn’t they be sued?</p>
<p>LW, not saying they should sue. But it would be understandable, and IMO they would have a case. The ER blew it. I notice that the hospital has gone dark after first blaming the computer system for the oversight, and then retracting that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of Duncan’s first ER visit, emergency treatment should have included testing for Ebola.</p>
<p>Except that it would appear that the family are the only ones likely to get sick or die. I doubt they will sue themselves.</p>
<p>There is probably no evidence that the delay in treating him was a significant factor in his death, since he didn’t start to experience debilitating symptoms right away. He didn’t get ZMAPP because there wasn’t any to be had. White, insured patients aren’t getting it either. He got what they are getting. There could be evidence that the delay resulted in the illness of others. Maybe. It seems from everything I’ve been reading that dissension in the ranks of doctors and scientists about the details of transmission may be appearing. </p>
<p>I would be very surprised if legal vultures and those with a political agenda have not been circling the family since the moment it became known that he had been sent home the first time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not say there would be a point. I just said they would have standing to sue, and anyone could if he wants. </p>
<p>Plus, they may have nothing, but if they are on public assistance and taking taxpayer money, they could be sued, and if found guilty, could be deported.</p>
<p>Duncan was treated with another experimental drug, not Zmapp, per some reports. That said, it does not mean that the drug is a failure. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everybody has right of recourse to the courts, without threats or intimidation from the government.</p>
<p>The hospital will be sued, and they will have to pay. It’s pretty clear. I’m pretty sure they will be counseled to settle.</p>
<p>I think you’re right, Nrdsb4.</p>
<p>Me too.</p>
<p>My guess is quick lawsuit, confidential settlement.</p>
<p>A potential hospital lawsuit by the family is why everyone harmed should reserve the right to sue. If he lied to get here and knowingly exposed people, his family should not be allowed to profit. </p>
<p>For example, if I owned that apartment building and his and his family’s actions now make it worth half its value, I would consider suing them if they are awarded money.</p>
<p>Interesting, and who sues? His mother I’m guessing. Those people we are calling his family are not related to him, really. </p>
<p>I think we should sue Liberian givernment for letting him out. :)</p>
<p>Anyone who was exposed and either sickened or inconvenienced (many of these people probably cannot go to work), or who are suffering “emotional distress” at having to contemplate a gruesome death from ebola for 21 days or have suffered other financial damages as a result of the two day delay between initial interface with the hospital and actual diagnosis/isolation can and probably will sue.</p>
<p>Anybody can sue anyone for anything. You just have to get a jury/judge/arbitration person (don’t know term) to sympathize, agree, and inflict a punishment.</p>