> The doctor wrote in the my medical journal: “During his hospitalization, he took medication on time, and even without IV fluid therapy, his blood calcium levels were normal. However, once he returned home, his blood calcium levels became elevated. It is evident that he did not adhere to the medication schedule at home as instructed.”
This is so typical of Swedish doctors. If something doesn't work, it's ALWAYS the patient's fault. If they don't know what a problem, it's ALWAYS psychosomatic. This guy is just lucky the latter is literally impossible in this case.
Also, for all the people assuming the case was dropped just because she was released, that may not be the case. People are often (most of the time?) released before trial here. It seems like OP hasn't updated enough for us to know whether it's prosecuted or not. It definitely seems like something that would be.
It’s not just Swedish doctors. I was put on psychiatric medication for what turned out to be as simple as allergies and lactose intolerance.
In my experience unless you’re paying through the nose, you have to be pitiable/attractive enough for the average doctor to buy into your case enough to make a complex (or even simple with unusual symptoms) diagnosis. No different to any other profession ultimately we just put them on a pedestal because the studies are so intense.
> It is evident that he did not adhere to the medication schedule at home as instructed.
Isn't that statement totally correct? It doesn't blame anyone. It merely concludes that he either didn't take the medication, or took (or was given) something else in addition to the medication schedule - because the doctor could tell by the numbers that something must have been taken, his body could not have produced it.
The statement doesn't exclude him being poisoned, or given the wrong medicine at the pharmacy, or taking the wrong medicine by mistake. Just that the body hadn't gotten the medication specified, and only the medication specified.
Thats’s what I’m saying: “adhere to” in this context doesn’t mean “do your best”. It just means the medicine taken was incorrect, regardless of how that happened.
If you accidentally get the wrong medication at the pharmacy or is poisoned then you didn’t get exactly and only the prescribed medicine.
It’s not a sentence blaming anyone. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters to the doctor is whether the medicines and doses are correct or not. If there are bad side effects when the medicine schedule is followed then it may need to be revised. If the doctor concludes the schedule wasn’t followed then the side effects don’t necessarily mean the medicines or doses must be changed.
That’s all it is. It’s a note from the doctor to himself and other medical staff. The important bit is that another doctor shouldn’t rush to conclude e.g that the dosing must change.
> Thats’s what I’m saying: “adhere to” in this context doesn’t mean “do your best”. It just means the medicine taken was incorrect, regardless of how that happened.
Yes. And the wife (presumably) ruined that. The journal note isn’t about whether the patient did their best to follow the schedule but whether they ingested the medicine in the schedule and nothing else. In this case the doctor concluded they had not. So they hadn’t adhered to the schedule. Whose fault that was isn’t relevant to the journal note (nor implied by it)
No, it's the fact that she spiked his drink with a calcium compound. Just use your common sense. It's allowed, even when it comes to women. Especially when it comes to women.
> > The doctor wrote in the my medical journal: “During his hospitalization, he took medication on time, and even without IV fluid therapy, his blood calcium levels were normal. However, once he returned home, his blood calcium levels became elevated. It is evident that he did not adhere to the medication schedule at home as instructed.”
> This is so typical of Swedish doctors. If something doesn't work, it's ALWAYS the patient's fault. If they don't know what a problem, it's ALWAYS psychosomatic. This guy is just lucky the latter is literally impossible in this case.
Eh, what are the options in this situation, at that point?
1) Some undiscovered underlying issue and not adhering to medication schedule
2) Self-poisoning
3) Poisoning
#1 is probably thousands of times more likely than #2 or #3 - it's not unreasonable that a doctor initially goes with the far more likely assumption.
Honestly, I was pretty impressed that his doctors didn't lose patience with him given the many repeated issues he faced - irrespective of what they might have thought, his care appeared to be very good indeed.
The problem existed the whole time; the proof came at the end. Do you see any sensible reason to assume that the problem wasn't the same the whole time?
> Eh, what are the options in this situation, at that point?
How about not lying. If you don't know, just say you don't know instead of making shit up.
> Honestly, I was pretty impressed that his doctors didn't lose patience with him given the many repeated issues he faced - irrespective of what they might have thought, his care appeared to be very good indeed.
This is the law here. It has nothing to do with the doctor.
> How about not lying. If you don't know, just say you don't know instead of making shit up.
I think you’re missing the ‘human’ angle here.
‘I don’t know’ is rarely an acceptable position for an expert, especially a doctor. And yes, many experts, doctors included, are trained to expect that common things happen commonly. Most people aren’t given to believing conspiracy theories until shown strong supportive evidence.
> This is the law here. It has nothing to do with the doctor.
Again, missing the human angle.
Healthcare professionals can deliver vastly different levels of care, while ostensibly remaining ‘legal’ and beyond reproach.
—
(You sound like you’ve got a personal axe to grind with doctors?)
Apologies - I wasn't intending to be "dismissive", and no "personal attack" was intended. I'm simply reflecting on the tone of the several comments you've written, which seem angry, IME beyond the norm for someone simply discussing on a story on the internet.
> "This is so typical of Swedish doctors. If something doesn't work, it's ALWAYS the patient's fault. If they don't know what a problem, it's ALWAYS psychosomatic."
Re-reading this, I think I can be forgiven for the suspicion you've some history with the Swedish medical establishment? :) But of course, apologies if this is not the case.
> It is never acceptable for experts to lie.
You're wrong to call the doctor's note about an assumption they were making "a lie". A "lie" is a deliberate untruth in order to deceive, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Of course, hindsight proved them wrong, but at the time they were merely making an assumption as to the possible cause, presumably based on education, experience, and probability.
Medication errors are common, communication issues between patients and doctors are common, a patient lying to their doctor is quite common, Munchausen syndrome and poisoning are very uncommon.
They could have written "Of course there other unlikely explanations, but my current prevailing hypothesis based on the balance of probabilities is...", but... no-one's perfect.
This is so typical of Swedish doctors. If something doesn't work, it's ALWAYS the patient's fault. If they don't know what a problem, it's ALWAYS psychosomatic. This guy is just lucky the latter is literally impossible in this case.
Also, for all the people assuming the case was dropped just because she was released, that may not be the case. People are often (most of the time?) released before trial here. It seems like OP hasn't updated enough for us to know whether it's prosecuted or not. It definitely seems like something that would be.