2 1/2 pieces
-
Lilith — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 10:35 PM)
I thought she had the freedom to not take any meds and that they couldn't enforce her food intake. That's what I've been questioning all this time, yet they kept her at the last nursing home for almost five months while she continued to order food deliveries on a daily basis, not complying with any sort of dietary restrictions, and in this case, not even complying with her psych medication requirements.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Lilith — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 10:49 PM)
Good point.
I still wonder about the liability. I mean, since she was admitted due to complications with diabetes and they're making zero effort to control her food intake and allowing her to eat whatever she wants, whenever she wants, they technically cannot effectively manage her diabetes. What would happen, on a legal level, if she were to have complications, go into shock or slip into a coma, all through zero fault of what the nursing home was doing, but more as to what they were not doing by not restricting her access to outside foods that they cannot account for when trying to establish/determine things like her insulin requirements?
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Ajgoodfellow — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 11:13 PM)
The facility will say they followed the protocols of treatment but the patient was non compliant. Which is true. They are monitoring her and feeding her adequate food. Technically they aren’t doing anything wrong. They probably have no policy on buying outside food and therefore cannot enforce such a rule. They cannot restrict her behavior or throw out food she buys. It’s all on her.
Hey Diddler, Diddler….the cat and the fiddler LOL -
Lilith — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 11:51 PM)
I can understand that policy applying to
most
people, but with Christina and her out of control diabetes that they're trying to
get
under control combined with her out of control eating habits, this is akin to allowing a patient admitted for pulmonary edema, or some other cardio-pulmonary problems, access to three packs of cigarettes every day.
But even then, your logic would
still
apply, as the
patient
is ultimately responsible for following up or following through on the doctor's orders and their own care. It's just frustrating watching all their efforts go down the drain. Short of her being declared incompetent and being put into some type of facility with tight regulations, she's going to continue to walk across a burning bridge.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
/. — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 11:16 PM)
If they banned her from ordering food they would probably have to ban all the patients from having outside food and that seems unlikely.
At the end of the day they're not her legal guardians or anything like that she hasn't been deemed incompetent or whatever (yet) so that might not be something they're allowed to stop her from doing.
My password is password -
soapbox original gangster — 1 year ago(August 16, 2024 10:31 PM)
lose the peperoni and the pizza is a 7/10.
however, the Doc Pep doesnt look zero-sugar/diet. it's regular with more sugar than a diabetic should consume in a week. you should drink only zero-sugar drinks.
justify taking taxpayer money- which you do not contribute to that revenue source- all the while making yourself sicker and potentially requiring more expensive treatment?
@ donna: please evaluate my position both for medical and financial soundness.
️ Christina 1986-05-20 
..?