Warpaint, on Dec 12 2008, 11:15 PM, said:
Gilla, on Dec 12 2008, 09:02 PM, said:
I'm just offering a different perspective on the situation...it is just as incomplete as the one presented by the press...I wasn't there, but it seems to me that there are clues indicating some important information is being omitted...one should wonder why. All I'm really saying is that we might react or feel differently about the woman being stupid for climbing out a window, or unjustified in suing the hospital for them not taking more precautions to keep her from harm...especially if that's why she was there. So, if she was at the mental health center because she was prone to hurting herself, sought professional support to resolve that, and the hospital failed to assess her properly and take adequate precautions, would that be so different from suing a surgeon who infected his patient because he forgot to wash his hands or wear a mask and gown? Seeing things from that perspective might make you happier.
Warpaint, we always only get one side from the media, and yes, by the name it does sound like she may have been in a mental hospital. She might win, she may have cause, but it doesn't make me happy.
Warpaint, I'm not happy that she got hurt. I'm not happy that the hospital- if at fault- oops'ed that badly. And I'm not happy that whatever she wins, (should she win) her lawyer will get half. (I'm sure that's an overstatement, but that's how I feel.)
I was agreeing with you that we usually only recieve half of the story from any one source. The only way to truely understand what happened is to be there when it did happen. Second best is to get both sides of the story and try to reconcile them into a single story. Worst is to listen to only one side. When I was an MP I waited until I had heard both stories and asked my questions before I wrote my synopsis, and then it was only after I had left to avoid any editing from anyone.
Again, it's her right to sue, I'm just sorry she might have cause to sue.