Pat Iyer MSN RN LNCC You are right Pat. The surgeon did have an obligation to discuss alternatives, and it seemed as if Amanda was targeted because of a "radical" difference of opinion to make sure the patient was well informed about all options. I've seen this in practice where healthcare providers have sometimes just threw a fit when hospice was consulted, as if there is this black cloud over them when they come to the bedside to speak with the patient and family members. These providers seem to feel defeated in a way, as if not given the chance to "win this one," or beat the disease.

Pat, thanks so much for sharing her story. Our cause is bigger than this case alone, and we hope to make a big impact on the industry here that collaboration is a must, that nurses are a critical part of the team, and we will continue to advocate for our patients.

#NurseUp

Thank you Kevin, and Coach Berg, for your insights about the Amanda Trujillo case. The surgeon had an obligation to inform the patient about the risks and alternatives to the proposed surgery. My experience as a legal nurse consultant for 23 years has shown that when nurses do NOT speak up about something that gives them concern, that the outcome is often bad and results in patient harm. What struck me in reading the materials about this case was the sentence that the physicians were not ready to consider hospice care. But it is not their decision to make. Amanda protected her patient's rights. I am horrified that she has been subjected to this nightmare.I will share her story on www.avoidmedicalerrors.com and will encourage others to do so.