How to get the rehab hospital to admit that they...

Post Reply New Topic

Murdered my sweet David?!?

I suspect this was all caused by the rehab hospital themselves but how do we force them to admit the truth?

I think his sister needs to take them to court and sue not just because of David but also for the rest of the patients who have perished under their care! !!

There is currently an investigation in progress where they are researching David's medical history and records in order to determine what REALLY happened but if I am correct in my assertion that the rehab facility is the true culprit...

HOWEVER, I just realized something...

If his sister was the one who decided to send David to this dreadful hospital in the first place then that would mean she indirectly played a role in his murder! !!

She should have done thorough research on the rehab center before sending her brother there to be imprisoned & ultimately murdered!



EDIT: His sister just told me that it doesn't work that way and it's more similar to how a TV show pilot gets shopped around to various networks until one network decides to take a chance on the project!! !

At least that is how I understand it but more importantly this proves that David's sister was not involved in this at ALL and her responsibility/role in this entire mess is absolved!

So...what actually killed my fiance David?!?

That is the million-dollar question and problem numero-uno right now as the character Toko Fukawa (as her alter-ego Genocide Jack) said in the video game "Danganronpa"...

It seems like, even if the rehab hospital did legitimately engage in negligence that caused David's death, you're not in a position to get them to admit to that and they have no reason to admit to any wrongdoing without being forced to.

I would wait until the review of David's medical history is completed, but I wouldn't anticipate anything coming out that implies negligence on the part of the rehab hospital. If there's no evidence of the hospital doing something wrong, the hospital has no reason to even consider admitting wrong-doing.

So, to put your question back to you, why do you believe that any evidence of wrongdoing on the hospital's part exists?

Not all deaths while under medical care are the fault of the medical service providers. It's tragic when people we love die, but that doesn't always mean that there's a specific entity who can be held accountable for that person's passing.

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly have been negligence or mistakes or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the hospital. I'm saying the process of proving so will be almost impossible for his family, let alone for you.

You might believe it to be the case, but believe in one hand and s**t in another and see which gets full first. A belief without evidence isn't enough to do anything with, not even to confirm itself. Faith alone is a very weak starting point when trying to support that belief.

If they've erased his files that might break laws regarding preservation of records.

Active efforts to cover up wrongdoing can often attract more attention/scrutiny than the initial wrongdoing itself.

That said, I doubt Kindred Hospital is intentionally killing patients regularly. Patients who require ongoing care are an ongoing source of revenue. Killing them means needing to replace them, or making less money.

Record retention laws often exist because the paperwork can provide insight when trying to examine how a situation went wrong. A patient dying under their care in an unexplained manner would count, no?

If any sort of investigation were to be ordered, they'd want to look at those records.

Why would a place that makes money from people with disabilities discriminate (broadly) against people with disabilities? I think you're looking for a simple black and white motive for intentional and malicious behaviour on the hospital's part. Even if you add up all of the potential malicious motives that might exist, they don't make up the bulk of potential causes.

It's more likely to be negligent rather than malicious. That's assuming the hospital is at fault, which isn't guaranteed.

There's a number of potential causes of cardiac arrest that probably wouldn't be the fault of the hospital. You've mentioned his health issues before, complications from those would need to be considered.

People often feel fine prior to a medical emergency occurring, since until it starts they weren't dealing with it. There's often very little warning prior to a heart issue occurring, and it's largely a matter of how quick the onset is.

The way you talk about this is from very close to a conclusion that you might believe but doesn't appear to have been substantiated. I hope you're able to get more information about what actually occurred and find closure from it, but it's probably worth finding out what happened before you focus on how to deal with one fairly narrow set of potential circumstances.

Did he have high blood pressure and live a sedentary lifestyle?
Was he on medications with potential impacts on cardiac health?

Was his level of cardiac health even understood?

An idiopathic cause for his cardiac arrest can't be ruled out either, especially without an autopsy.

Not having someone on call might not be enough to be considered negligent. If they're not required to have one on call, then it wouldn't be, but perhaps that can be changed going forward.

I agree, without an autopsy it might be impossible to determine what happened. From a holding them accountable perspective, that's where innocent until proven guilty comes into play.