Profits Before Patients, Betrayal of Trust
January 1, 2025
By Greg Freeman
The facts of the medical care that supposedly led to a New Jersey patient named Darryl Young’s brain damage and death are still to be determined, but the hospital’s behavior after the transplant was “outrageous,” says Joseph Cammarata, JD, partner with the law firm of Chaikin Sherman Cammarata Siegel in Washington, DC.
It appears the actions were motivated by the effect of survival statistics on the hospital’s reimbursement and ability to continue with a transplant program, he says.
“They’ve put profits over patients,” he says. “They’ve lost their way.”
Cammarata notes that a dignified death is an important goal in everyone’s life, and the hospital took that away from the patient and his family.
“They’ve informed the family he’s alive. Now his family thinks they must be keeping him alive because they’re holding out hope to the family that there’s a way that this could be reversed,” he says. “But what they’re doing really is just trying to benefit their bottom line. The conduct that they’ve engaged in shouldn’t be tolerated in a civilized society, and they should be severely punished.”
When you put profits before patients, it’s only a matter of time before you start hurting both, says Autumn Seib, JD, an attorney with the Wagner Reese law firm in Carmel, IN.
The hospital’s behavior suggests an overemphasis on quality statistics as opposed to patient well-being, Seib says.
“The root of the problem seemingly stems from the fact that the one-year survival statistic includes people like Mr. Young who are artificially ‘alive,’ i.e., they would be dead but for machines carrying out the functions of one or more vital organs,” she says. “This really isn’t surviving for all intents and purposes.”
Prevention seems contingent upon changing this definition or using some other statistic that can be monitored to ensure quality care but also avoid outcomes such as this, Seib says.
She notes that the hospital appeared to be motivated by their desire to keep the transplant program in operation. However, Young was still a person with a family who should have been kept fully apprised of his condition, prognosis, and treatment options, she says.
“When physicians graduate medical school, they take an oath to always act in the best interest of the patient,” Seib says. “Unfortunately, what they did to Mr. Young may not have been in his best interest, even if they were driven by their motivation to help more patients in the future.”
Sources
- Joseph Cammarata, JD, Partner, Chaikin Sherman Cammarata Siegel, Washington, DC. Telephone: (202) 659-8600.
- Autumn Seib, JD, Wagner Reese, Carmel, IN. Telephone: (866) 544-2623.
Greg Freeman has worked with Relias Media and its predecessor companies since 1989, moving from assistant staff writer to executive editor before becoming a freelance writer. He has been the editor of Healthcare Risk Management since 1992 and provides research and content for other Relias Media products. In addition to his work with Relias Media, Greg provides other freelance writing services and is the author of seven narrative nonfiction books on wartime experiences and other historical events.
The facts of the medical care that supposedly led to a New Jersey patient named Darryl Young’s brain damage and death are still to be determined, but the hospital’s behavior after the transplant was “outrageous.”
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content