TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › He thought it was funny?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

He thought it was funny?

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editoria...&rg=blsadstrgt
An oral surgeon implanted fake boar tusks in an employees mouth while she was under anesthesia for a different proceedure, temporarily, as a joke! He took pictures and removed them before she woke up. How mean and rude!
post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editoria...&rg=blsadstrgt
An oral surgeon implanted fake boar tusks in an employees mouth while she was under anesthesia for a different proceedure, temporarily, as a joke! He took pictures and removed them before she woke up. How mean and rude!
Um, I think I'm going to be the only one who says this, but I think it's funny too.

However, he had no right to take pictures and show them to people other than her.

I'm sorry I think it's funny.
post #3 of 21
I agree...I woulda thought it funny too...It just sounds like a practical joke gone bad..
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
If the "joke" were between the 2 of them then, maybe. It wasn't. IMO, he was making fun of her. He propped her eyes open in some of the pictures. He did not show them to her himself. He passed them around the office. She wasn't shown the pictures until she saw them at a party. IMO, it's not funny. It's sick.
post #5 of 21
If I was friends with this doctor then obviously I would be in on the joke.

However, any other situation, that is strictly unprofessional and he should have his license suspended from practicing for a year.
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy View Post
I agree...I woulda thought it funny too...It just sounds like a practical joke gone bad..

Yeah, one that netted him $500,000.00 for his obnoxiousness!

Quote:
He was delighted with the high court's decision,
I would be thrilled too if I humiliated someone like he did and then profited to the tune of a half million dollars.

I feel bad for the girl who he did that too. The article said that he took pictures but didn't show them to the girl. However, he showed them around the office. It was evidently supposed to be a private joke between him and other employees (not the girl), and someone ended up showing the pictures to her, months after they were taken.

The poor girl was being ridiculed and laughed at behind her back until then.

She trusted her boss to perform dental work on her, and instead he abused her trust and used it to humiliate her because she tends to talk about raising pot bellied pigs, which apparently they were tired of hearing about if you read between the lines.

Shame on him! And shame on the courts for giving approval for such abhorent behaviour!
post #7 of 21
And now he gets $750,000 dollars?!! :censor::censor::censor:?? Even if the judges thought "it was just a prank" why the hell give him so much? He only paid out $250,000 to his former assistant.
That's disgusting that he gets to profit from this very, very questionable behaviour.
He took advantage of his assistant while she was under. Don't dentists have a bad enough rep for that already?
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by pushylady View Post
And now he gets $750,000 dollars?!! :censor::censor::censor:?? Even if the judges thought "it was just a prank" why the hell give him so much? He only paid out $250,000 to his former assistant.
That's disgusting that he gets to profit from this very, very questionable behaviour.
He took advantage of his assistant while she was under. Don't dentists have a bad enough rep for that already?
He's getting $500,000.00 because he felt his insurance company should uphold the malpractice insurance and because they didn't, he was awarded what amounts to the $250,000.00 he paid to the girl, and the rest can be essencially considered "pain and suffering" money.
post #9 of 21
When someone is under anesthesia, she or he is extremely vulnerable and whenever a practitioner takes advantage of it, it goes past the point of being a prank and is a violation of that person.
post #10 of 21
I find that very wrong. He wanted to hurt her....that much was obvious.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
When someone is under anesthesia, she or he is extremely vulnerable and whenever a practitioner takes advantage of it, it goes past the point of being a prank and is a violation of that person.
Exactly that! Had he raped her while she was under anesthesia, he would have been arrested, tried, convicted and lost his license. She was vulnerable and could not consent. What he did was wrong. Very, very wrong! If he does stuff like that, what else does he do when his patients are under anesthesia?!

It's evident from him not sharing the photo with her immediately that it was meant to be a secret joke on her between him and the other staff members.

His behaviour is shameful, as is the ruling. Our court system is in shambles and a complete joke, and this is just another proof of that.
post #12 of 21
yet another reason not to trust a doc.
she should have kicked his you know what
post #13 of 21
Where do I start?

Yes, in a way it was funny BUT I can see her side to it.

As a person who has been under anesthesia at a dentist and had things happen, I don't think it's funny at all.

You are very vulnerable when you're under like that. Luckily, I have a high tolerance to sedatives and I was in a "dream" like state when it happened.
I was able to report it and put the dentist out of business. I didn't sue him.
I just wanted to make sure it didn't happen to anyone EVER again.
post #14 of 21
I am astonished at this. It is not even remotely funny and he should have been punished to the full extent of the law, NOT compensated. As a medical professional it is his responsibility NOT to take advantage of patients when they are not in a position to defend themselves - let alone be aware of what is happening to them.

It is part of being responsible and ethical as a doctor. Why did he wait until she was under anaesthetic? Because she probably would have protested had she been awake. An anaesthetised human is not a plaything to manipulate as you will. Even if it was intended as a prank, the outcome had nothing of joking about it. How appalling, what a way to violate someone when they are completely, and utterly under your control - a position of trust when you are a doctor / surgeon / dentist. What a digusting pig that man is.
post #15 of 21
Okay I'd like to justify my "I think it's funny" comment. It would be funny if it was in a cartoon or a movie not in real life. She was in a very vulnerable state and it was completely wrong to do something like that to her. I'm glad she sued and I'm glad she got herself a nice little nest egg out of it.
post #16 of 21
I'll clarify too...This would be a practical joke that would be funny if 1) she was receptive to it and 2) it was between her and himself.

A practical joke, by it's nature, is funny because you are embarrassing someone and a practical joke is usually aimed at someone you love or like very much.

This was obviously not the case....I just don't understand how if he didn't know her that well and wasn't going to show her the pictures (but everyone else) how he would think this would turn out "funny"...

Though I briefly entertained the thought that the both of them arranged the entire thing and are now laughing at the world.....paranoid?
post #17 of 21
As a person who has had horrible things done to her while she was drugged, I feel that this was severely violating. Joke or not, anyone putting something foreign into an orifice of your body without your permission is violating your person.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tink80 View Post
As a person who has had horrible things done to her while she was drugged, I feel that this was severely violating. Joke or not, anyone putting something foreign into an orifice of your body without your permission is violating your person.
Would the "humorous doc" like to have something similar done to him?? Don't think so
post #19 of 21
The other crime in this is that the courts said that the insurance company had to pay him $500,000. (Remember she only got $250,000). And while I'm not a big fan of insurance companies, I have to agree with them that they shouldn't have to cover this kind of idiocy because it is not part of a dental practice.
post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
The other crime in this is that the courts said that the insurance company had to pay him $500,000. (Remember she only got $250,000). And while I'm not a big fan of insurance companies, I have to agree with them that they shouldn't have to cover this kind of idiocy because it is not part of a dental practice.
I didn't understand that either. I don't believe liability insurance is for something that is done intentionally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva!
I am astonished at this. It is not even remotely funny and he should have been punished to the full extent of the law, NOT compensated. As a medical professional it is his responsibility NOT to take advantage of patients when they are not in a position to defend themselves - let alone be aware of what is happening to them.

It is part of being responsible and ethical as a doctor. Why did he wait until she was under anaesthetic? Because she probably would have protested had she been awake. An anaesthetised human is not a plaything to manipulate as you will. Even if it was intended as a prank, the outcome had nothing of joking about it. How appalling, what a way to violate someone when they are completely, and utterly under your control - a position of trust when you are a doctor / surgeon / dentist. What a digusting pig that man is.
Very well said!
post #21 of 21
Quote:
In a sprightly 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Woo's practical joke was an integral, if odd, part of the assistant's dental surgery and "conceivably" should trigger the professional liability coverage of his policy.
I don't find it funny at all. If anything I find the behavior of the dentist to be highly unethical and I think he should lose his license. Also, what kind of message does the court's decision send? Their condoning of this poor behavior by siding with Woo shows an incredible lack of good judgement on their part. I also have to question the integrity of a jury from a lower court case that sided with the dentist. How in the world someone could consider this an "intergral part of the surgery" is beyond me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › He thought it was funny?