<p>There is information on the psychiatrist at ABC News including disciplinary actions by the state medical board. The resume provides the number of students that seen per week along with the number of patients seen in private practice. I don’t think that I would put the number of students seen per week on a public document.</p>
<p>It’s unclear as to how long Holmes has been seeing the school’s psychiatrist and what he had been seeing her for. Their communications are protected. The length of time may come out in court or in public from other sources such as the parents (if they knew).</p>
<p>Well, you know she is going to be sued by the victims and her notes will be subpoenaed. If she is an employee of the school, they will be sued as well.</p>
<p>I’d guess that her notes would be protected too.</p>
<p>I know a psychologist that gave up her license or didn’t renew it because of a lawsuit from the spouse of a patient that committed suicide. She had seen him once and I think that she recommended he see a psychiatrist for meds and then shortly thereafter committed suicide. His wife sued everyone involved and she preferred to stop practicing rather than face a board inquiry.</p>
<p>Psychologists and psychiatrists are not mind-readers. I suppose that there are obvious signs and signals that someone is going to do something but many others probably hide those things for fear of being seen as different.</p>
<p>It would not surprise me to see a lot of lawsuits.</p>
<p>According to 7News, which cited state records, Fenton was reprimanded for prescribing medication to herself, her husband and an employee. The medications, prescribed in the late 1990s, included prescriptions for Vicodin, Xanax, Lorazepam and Ambien, according to 7News.</p>
<p>More sad news this morning. The poor woman who was seriously wounded, and whose six year old was killed in the attack, has miscarried. Such incredible grief for these individuals for a long time to come.</p>
<p>“What I have not seen is a specific mention that self-defense, defense of the home, defense of anything except society against an overbearing government was rejected as an idea by those writing the Bill of Rights. I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that a ban on restricting the right to keep and bear arms, with the militia being the included reasoning, somehow rejects the idea that there is any other reason to protect the right.”</p>
<p>I urge you to do your own research. Don’t take my conclusions. The discussions on the issues at the time were prolific, not only in consideration of the Bill of Rights, but in each state’s consideration of their own Constitutions. Again, the Second Amendment is the ONLY Amendment that provides a context for its right. These were not stupid people. Many of them came from states where the right to bear arms for self-defense (or hunting) was protected, and some from states (such as New York) where it was not protected. They picked and chose among the options open to them, and in this case, to make sure they would not be misunderstood, they stated the context in the Amendment itself. (The New York discussions are especially interesting.) No Amendment or Constitutional measure mentions what arguments were rejected - why should they? Instead, they tell you what is included.</p>
<p>Since this has turned itself away from the original topic I will ask a question that is likely a stupid one but I read that some of the wounded have medical bills over a million dollars already and have no insurance. I am serious when I ask what will happen to them considering this was not of their fault.</p>
<p>percussion–I raised the same concern, I did read that one of the hospitals was limiting expenses to the survivors there, but yes there needs to be some way to assist crime victims who incur these astronomical bills, and don’t have coverage. </p>
<p>one sister of a survivor has started a fundraising effort, as the girls’ mother is battling cancer as well. this along with the young woman who just miscarried is heartbreaking for these families…</p>
<p>In theory, they can sue everything that moves - the theater, the security company, the university, the shooter (no money there). It would/will take years to collect, if ever. The hospitals will pick up some charity care, but likely nowhere near enough.</p>
<p>This is America. Many families will go bankrupt. It is the American way. (Illnesses and accidents where health care costs bankrupt American families are in no way an exception.)</p>
<p>The linked report claims that Holmes was on several medications and under the care of one or more doctors. I haven’t seen that anywhere else and wonder where they got their information from or if they’re just making it up.</p>
<p>I don’t think that the guy filing the lawsuit has a case against the theater or Warner Brothers. I don’t know about the doctors as there hasn’t been anything official on the details of the relationship between the doctor(s) and Holmes.</p>
Not trying to sound too insensitive but, this is why people need to carry medical insurance - for coverage of anything that can happen to them, not just illnesses, but accidents and malicious harm as well. Lots of medical care, perhaps most of it, is for illnesses/injuries that weren’t ‘their fault’.</p>
<p>In this case, the woman was pregnant and had a 6 y/o child - they should have health insurance (they may have insurance - I don’t know). There are many things that can go wrong in a childbirth that can rack up medical bills and of course anything can happen to anyone at any time.</p>
<p>In this case of the shooting victims, many of them might have few medical bills initially due to the hospitals limiting the charges in this special case as well as likely large donations made from the studio and the public due to the notoriety of this one. Of course, some of the victims will likely have ongoing medical issues and need therapy for years afterward.</p>
<p>Gladgraddad I am really pleased to hear that help will be given to them. Thanks for that post
Mini I am shocked that it is just accepted that some may go bankrupt because of this. I know n freshman year my D had a friend who ended up having a burst appendix and was rushed to hospital but could not return To college the next semester because the family could not afford it.</p>
<p>Bankruptcies in hard hit areas after major hurricanes (Katrina for example) go up 10-11% the first year and peak at about a 30% increase in the 5th year.</p>
<p>Percussiondad - I am shocked too, though after 20 years of working in public health, the shock has worn thin. This wouldn’t happen in most civilized nations. </p>
<p>“Not trying to sound too insensitive but, this is why people need to carry medical insurance…”</p>
<p>In most states, my wife and I are both uninsurable - at any price. We are lucky that she has a job through a hospital…and lucky to have enough free cash to pay all deductibles, etc. And in most states it is still the case that “if you fail 10th grade math, you don’t deserve health care”. The reasoning for that is simple: you’ll never find a job where health care is among the benefits. </p>
<p>I’m not a fan of either RomneyCare or ObamaCare (they are mostly the same thing.) But just imagine how different this situation would be if it had occurred in Massachusetts.</p>
<p>In HI, employees working at least 20 hours/week are entitled to employer-subsidized insurance. This makes for a lot of part-time employees working under 20 hours/week as well as a lot of people who ARE covered by insurance. Our entire family would be “uninsurable” other than being able to buy coverage through employer because we are all asthmatic. Fortunately, H has insurance through his workplace that covers us all, since our “kids” are under 26 years old (even tho S is totally self-sufficient). </p>
<p>S also has insurance through his workplace, but he has opted not to get it until he turns 26, since he’s already covered by H’s policy & he’d rather share his portion of the premiums. Our medical insurer agreed that except for those with costly Rx, it generally makes no sense for folks to get dual-med insurance coverage.</p>
<p>So my wife had a very aggressive form of breast cancer, and I “died” from a heart attack. No one would ensure us. I fully understand why. When you think about it, it’s kind of insulting (among other things) - after all, we paid health insurance premiums for 30 years or so before either of us had a major event. Now we would be pariahs. No one would want my younger d with her bum knee either.</p>
<p>Some of the victims of the shooting, even after they recover from their acute injuries, will also have long-term sequelae. They too will join the ranks of the uninsurable. It’s the American way, or at least it has been. I have heard it said that the Supreme Court decision, by allowing states to opt out of expanded Medicaid, may result in as many as 30 million people who would have been insured will now fall out coverage. (The CBO report on this, citing the 30 million, also said it would “save the federal government money”. Whoopee.)</p>
<p>I guess the takeaway is that if you are going to be shot by a crazy man, arrange for it to happen in Massachusetts.</p>