Misdiagnosed privately

Undervalued

saajan_12 said:

If it got to legal, I imagine the test wouldn't be based on whether the diagnosis was ultimately correct but whether based on what the private doctor could see / know, whether their assessment was reasonable. If not, then arguably they didn't act with 'due skill, care and attention'
To prove that, you might need further evidence from an expert beyond just a different diagnosis, which might be expensive to obtain. 

I would start with a complaint, but always find its worth knowing what the ultimate legal position is to know how much to push. 

Also even if they didn't do their job well, the entire 18 months may not have been on them.. you could have gotten a second opinion or revisited the same doctor sooner, if their suggested remedy didn't help. 

Exactly.

In any civil claim you are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate any losses. You cannot just let a problem get worse (whether medical, plumbing, the roof of your house or whatever) and expect to recover the full cost from the party originally at fault. At best you might be awarded an estimate of what it would have cost to fix it at the time a reasonable person should have acted. 

textbook

Emmia said:

textbook said:

Emmia said:

So you saw a private doctor in the UK, a private doctor in Turkey, and then finally got an NHS diagnosis... 

I think if I wasn't sure about the first doctor's diagnosis I'd have gone to see my GP rather than flying off to Turkey.

The GPs did nothing.. in Turkey for prostate which included an ultrasound.  We weren't specifically focusing on lump but i asked him while there

So you also saw your GP before going to Turkey? 

I find the whole "going to Turkey" for medical treatment a bit odd. It's a long way, you've limited options if it goes wrong whilst you're there...

Yep.  No ultra sound was recommended which should have been by both GPs and urologist.  They just said had to get used to pain.  It's quite clear it's all incompetence.  A lump was similar to now.  Interesting that a hydrocele can change into a hernia if that's true.  Not referring for an ultrasound is the most disturbing action.  

textbook

teaselMay said:

It's entirely possible that you had a hydroceole 2 years ago and now have a hernia, they share a common cause. If the former isn't treated it can become the latter.

There are plenty of online doctor rating lists in the UK, most are populated by reviews of people who didn't get what they wanted, rather than needed, I wouldn't place any value in a review on such sites.

What's the common cause of both?   You say if not treated but the urologist dodnt want to treat it as said surgery would've been done for cosmetic reasons only.   I believe mine was related to torsion operation 35vyears ago and was damaged by a girl being too rough in bed- trauma

welshdent

having had an inguinal hernia - it isnt fat. Its a separation of the muscle allowing the underlying tissues and whatnot to bulge through. 

I didnt have an ultrasound for mine, it was a clinical diagnosis and surgical mesh repair. 

textbook

welshdent said:

having had an inguinal hernia - it isnt fat. Its a separation of the muscle allowing the underlying tissues and whatnot to bulge through. 

I didnt have an ultrasound for mine, it was a clinical diagnosis and surgical mesh repair. 

Ok thxs.   Mine is INSIDE my testicles, could this be why they needed to do an ultrasound?  Was yours on your groin area?   

If it's not fat why did Guy's Hospital (best for Urology in UK) say it was fat and either an inguinal hernia or lipoma of left spermatic cord?

Pollycat

textbook said:

welshdent said:

having had an inguinal hernia - it isnt fat. Its a separation of the muscle allowing the underlying tissues and whatnot to bulge through. 

I didnt have an ultrasound for mine, it was a clinical diagnosis and surgical mesh repair. 

Ok thxs.   Mine is INSIDE my testicles, could this be why they needed to do an ultrasound?  Was yours on your groin area?   

If it's not fat why did Guy's Hospital (best for Urology in UK) say it was fat and either an inguinal hernia or lipoma of left spermatic cord?

How can any random stranger on t'interweb answer that question?

Just to point out (from forum rules):

Medical advice

However well-intentioned, avoid seeking and/or offering medical advice, as it could result in unwanted consequences for all concerned.

Flugelhorn

textbook said:

welshdent said:

having had an inguinal hernia - it isnt fat. Its a separation of the muscle allowing the underlying tissues and whatnot to bulge through. 

I didnt have an ultrasound for mine, it was a clinical diagnosis and surgical mesh repair. 

Ok thxs.   Mine is INSIDE my testicles, could this be why they needed to do an ultrasound?  Was yours on your groin area?   

If it's not fat why did Guy's Hospital (best for Urology in UK) say it was fat and either an inguinal hernia or lipoma of left spermatic cord?

medics were diagnosing these for years without the magic of ultrasound.
There are direct and indirect hernias. If yours is "inside your testicles" then goodness knows what is going on - I think you mean scrotum 

textbook

Flugelhorn said:

textbook said:

welshdent said:

having had an inguinal hernia - it isnt fat. Its a separation of the muscle allowing the underlying tissues and whatnot to bulge through. 

I didnt have an ultrasound for mine, it was a clinical diagnosis and surgical mesh repair. 

Ok thxs.   Mine is INSIDE my testicles, could this be why they needed to do an ultrasound?  Was yours on your groin area?   

If it's not fat why did Guy's Hospital (best for Urology in UK) say it was fat and either an inguinal hernia or lipoma of left spermatic cord?

medics were diagnosing these for years without the magic of ultrasound.
There are direct and indirect hernias. If yours is "inside your testicles" then goodness knows what is going on - I think you mean scrotum 

Yes apologies, inside my scrotum (my sac) above my left testicle.  It makes it look like three testicles yes and ultrasound is the modern more accurate way if it's gone into the scrotum not a light shone on it.