Just Plain Ruff Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_updat...ary_tattoo.html What strikes me is this - here is a part of the article - "In a highly publicized case in 1999, a doctor in New York City went further by carving his initials into a patient's abdomen after delivering her baby by Caesarean section. Mateo, the patient from Pennsauken, declined to comment last night." Could this be our favorite poster Mateo's love child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Another bogus law suit. Hmmmm mayybe we know the truth about Mateo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERDoc Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I don't know spenac, I think a law suit and the emotional damage that was caused was a little much, but I think she might have a legitimate complain. I don't know if that was the best place to leave it. I can see not putting on her back since she is never going to see it, but at least put it up higher or on her arm. As far as that surgeon from NYC in 1999, I believe that the initials were in the woman's uterus where no one will ever see it (though I admit I could be wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I reread. Doc your right why was he in husband only area when surgery was not there? I agree placing it on her hand or arm much better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 yes below the pantyline is a little much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Mateo, the patient from Pennsauken, declined to comment last night." Could this be our favorite poster Mateo's love child? It could be.......the "admi" is still functional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 yes below the pantyline is a little much. Maybe not........ [spoil:70aa6d8c14][/spoil:70aa6d8c14] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Going on memory, not research, in the case of the surgeon who carved his initials into a patient, I believe it was on her abdomen, near her navel. The bad jokes at the time were that the doctor considered himself an "Artiste", and signed his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockeygod Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 This really pisses me off! This is just some stupid **** trying to get money out of a well respected surgeon. Does anyone really think that such an educated man would make such a move if he thought she was the slightest bit sensitive? This is obviously a guy who goes above and beyond to highten his patients' spirits. You can't compare a man who puts a TEMPORARY tattoo on a witch to a guy who CARVES his initials into a patient. Ok...so it was below the panty line...the crybaby was probably wearing diapers! She's probably a con artist that set him up. I hope karma finds her well. Here's one for the crook : :thebirdman: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmeaner Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 This really pisses me off! This is just some stupid **** trying to get money out of a well respected surgeon. Does anyone really think that such an educated man would make such a move if he thought she was the slightest bit sensitive? This is obviously a guy who goes above and beyond to highten his patients' spirits. You can't compare a man who puts a TEMPORARY tattoo on a witch to a guy who CARVES his initials into a patient. Ok...so it was below the panty line...the crybaby was probably wearing diapers! She's probably a con artist that set him up. I hope karma finds her well. Here's one for the crook : :thebirdman: Really. :shock: So, let's say that this was your wife who went in for the operation. The operation involves working on her lower back. The next day, you two find a temporary tattoo below the panty line, on the front side of her body. When she says, "Oh, my god, how did that get there?" So you ask and find out the surgeon placed it there, but no one else saw him do it (just so we're clear: HE WAS ALONE WITH YOUR WIFE, TOUCHING AN AREA BELOW THE PANTY LINE, WITH NO ONE ELSE AROUND AND FOR NO MEDICAL REASON!). And you're not going to be curious at all whether something inappropriate occured. Then, when your wife tells you that this has upset her and would like some action taken, you're going to call her a crook and give her the finger? Does that sum it up? Is there something I missed? Considering this happened in Philly, he's lucky he didn't get rolled in the parking lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts