Main > Everything Else

Woman sits on toilet for two years

<< < (6/11) > >>

ark_ader:
There could be a unknown medical issue we could be missing here.  I know plenty people who have had Crohn's Disease or Ulcerative Colitis.  These terrible medical conditions would restrict someone to just the bathroom very easily.  Depending on the severity.  It happens to one in five Americans.

Which makes the fact that she was thin a real possibility.  Also until just recently colitis was a very hush hush condition riddled with terrible personal embrassment.  I think it is in the category of America's number one killer, and took the life of Elisabeth Montgomery as both conditions can be cancerous.

If you are or a relative is suffering with the above medical conditions I would advise you to seek a doctor of internal medicine.  Any help before it gets out of hand.
Link: http://www.ccfa.org/info/about/ucp               

Linked with some mental issue (you would too if you had colitis) would explain the the very very sad story.

Blood clots could have been avoided with gentle excercise and stretches, very similar to the excercises you do when sitting at a desk too long.

Lets hope we never hear this type of story again.  :cheers:

protokatie:
http://www.wftv.com/news/3643877/detail.html


Ahh here we go, this is the one I was talking about, with the woman being actually grafted to the couch...

Jdurg:
There's nothing criminal about this case.  If the woman was repeatedly asking for help or wanted to get off the can and he refused to help and refused to allow her, then yes, it's criminal.  In this case, the woman did NOT want to get up or get off the can or go anywhere.  He wasn't denying her the ability to do anything.

I just hope she wasn't on any clinical trials or studies since figuring out how to code this incident into a clinical database would be a nightmare!   :P

shmokes:
I haven't taken family law.  Your guess is as good as mine.  I'll give you my guess anyway, though.  I have absolutely no idea whether there's any chance of criminal charges here.  That would depend entirely on the laws in Wichita, Kansas, I suppose.  Civilly I suppose we'd be looking at a potential negligence claim. Typically a person has no legal duty to help another unless the would-be rescuer created the person's danger.  The classic example is that an Olympic swimmer can sit by a swimming pool and smoke a cigarette while he watches a person drown.  He has no duty to help the drowning person, no matter how good a position he was in to provide help. 

There are exceptions to this rule, however.  People with special relationships can have affirmative duties to provide reasonable care and protection.  The category of special relationships that I could see being relevant here is custodial relationships.  People with custodial care over another person may have a special relationship giving rise to an affirmative duty of care.  You might say that this guy had a custodial relationship with this lady, but it seems like that would be a hard sell.  The lady is an adult who chose to be there.  For example, while schools K-12 usually have a special relationship with their students, universities usually do not.  The primary reason for this is that the latter is dealing with adults who chose to attend school.

Another theory that might get him is the undertaking doctrine, which says that once you've undertaken to help someone, even where you had no duty to do so, you assume a duty of reasonable care.  One might argue that by keeping her fed and so on, he was under a duty to act with reasonable care.  If a judge found that he did have such a duty, his case could then go to a jury to decide whether notifying authorities falls within the scope of "reasonable care".

Keep in mind that I am in my first year of law school . . . this is just the first stuff that comes to mind.  I'd have to research actual case law to give you a good answer.  While I have unlimited access to the normally retardedly expensive tools to conduct such research, I don't have anything like an inclination to  spend a lot of time on this.   ;D

Jdurg:
Law school and being involved in emulators/arcade cabinet building.  Ouch.  That's got to be quite a conflict!   ;) :P ;D :cheers:





--- Quote from: shmokes on March 15, 2008, 10:11:43 pm ---I haven't taken family law.  Your guess is as good as mine.  I'll give you my guess anyway, though.  I have absolutely no idea whether there's any chance of criminal charges here.  That would depend entirely on the laws in Wichita, Kansas, I suppose.  Civilly I suppose we'd be looking at a potential negligence claim. Typically a person has no legal duty to help another unless the would-be rescuer created the person's danger.  The classic example is that an Olympic swimmer can sit by a swimming pool and smoke a cigarette while he watches a person drown.  He has no duty to help the drowning person, no matter how good a position he was in to provide help. 

There are exceptions to this rule, however.  People with special relationships can have affirmative duties to provide reasonable care and protection.  The category of special relationships that I could see being relevant here is custodial relationships.  People with custodial care over another person may have a special relationship giving rise to an affirmative duty of care.  You might say that this guy had a custodial relationship with this lady, but it seems like that would be a hard sell.  The lady is an adult who chose to be there.  For example, while schools K-12 usually have a special relationship with their students, universities usually do not.  The primary reason for this is that the latter is dealing with adults who chose to attend school.

Another theory that might get him is the undertaking doctrine, which says that once you've undertaken to help someone, even where you had no duty to do so, you assume a duty of reasonable care.  One might argue that by keeping her fed and so on, he was under a duty to act with reasonable care.  If a judge found that he did have such a duty, his case could then go to a jury to decide whether notifying authorities falls within the scope of "reasonable care".

Keep in mind that I am in my first year of law school . . . this is just the first stuff that comes to mind.  I'd have to research actual case law to give you a good answer.  While I have unlimited access to the normally retardedly expensive tools to conduct such research, I don't have anything like an inclination to  spend a lot of time on this.   ;D

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version