Bullet removal

• Previous message: Bullet removal
• Next message: Bullet removal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

You comply with such an order only after the patient's consent, I presume.
Otherwise it sounds like a good case for your ethics committee: you're both
committing assault and violating his Fifth Amendment rights.  That is, if
America still has a Bill of Rights.

Wait.  We still have amendment number two, don't we?  Hence the missile of
interest...

Pret Bjorn, RN
Bangor, ME USA


-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]
On Behalf Of Hall, John R
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:31 PM
To: Trauma & Critical Care mailing list
Subject: RE: Bullet removal

CM
We once had a "court order" to remove the bullet for evidence.
j


-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org on behalf of caesar ursic
Sent: Mon 7/16/2007 12:37 PM
To: Trauma &amp, Critical Care mailing list
Subject: Re: Bullet removal
 
Consensus?  What's that?

I do know one thing: failure to remove all bullets will severely compromise
your credibility as a trauma surgeon with the family.  In their eyes, the
primary purpose of emergency surgery is to get the bullets out.

However, I was indoctrinated to believe that only bullets in the following
areas actually require removal:

1. when in contact with synovial fluid (i.e. joints): because they
compromise joint integrity and mobility and, if unjacketed, may lead to lead
intoxication;

2. when in a vessel lumen, to avoid distal missile embolus and vascular
occlusion;

3. when inside the heart, because, well... because loose objects within
heart chambers will only cause mischief.

4. when under the skin on weight-bearing surfaces (eg: the buttocks) or
surfaces subject to contact with clothing (eg: belt line) that produce
discomfort or pain.

5. when visibly bulging beneath the skin and causing cosmetic distress.

I've never heard that the indications are different in women versus men.

Once in a while a law-enforcement type will tell me that I need to remove a
bullet for 'evidence.'  I've never done that nor think that one can be
forced to do so, at least in this country (USA).

CM Ursic, MD
Santa Fe



On 7/16/07, William Bromberg <brombwi1 at memorialhealth.com> wrote:
>
> Hey there,
>
> Is there any consensus on indications for bullet removal in:
>
> asymptomatic men (I vote leave it)
> asymptomatic child-bearing age women - this is where I'm uncertain
>
> Symptomatic, in joints/blood vessels, impinging on the SC I figure need
> to come out.
>
> Any advice appreciated.
>
> Bill Bromberg
>
> --
> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
> http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/
>



-- 
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/

• Previous message: Bullet removal
• Next message: Bullet removal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]