Settlement Reached in John Ritter Suit

I am so happy for the Ritter Family. Doctors need to be held accountable for this. They think and some people believe they are god and what they say is fact. So I hope this is a lesson for us all to get second opinions if given the chance and in this case question what really happened to your loved one.
God Bless the Ritter family. John will always be in our hearts!

Is there any proof of malpractice, or is the family just pissed off because the doctors couldn't find what was wrong with Mr. Ritter in time? I liked John Ritter too - he seemed like one of the few genuinely nice guys in show business - but standards of proof are standards of proof. Aortic aneurysms are very rare and difficult to diagnose, as the symptoms are similar to those of the much more common heart attack.

By the way, Dianne, Ritter was admitted to the emergency ward. I'm somehow thinking there wasn't time to get a second opinion, know what I mean? It's one thing to question and hold accountable. It's quite another to assume negligence and stick out your hand for compensation when the fact of the matter is you have no idea.

Excellent comment by Shane. I am very disappointed to read John's untimely demise has been sullied by sordid financial ...one can only say "money grubbing". As a UK resident I must say that this appears to be the American way, unfortunately being imported here. As has been aptly commented ....some people know the price of everything
...but the value of nothing.

As someone old enough to remember Tex Ritter I would have to say that 8 Simple Rules, with John ,was my all time favourite sit. com.

The last season though......Oh dear...am I right in assuming another production company took the programme over ?

lawsuit?

Shane, if you read my email correctly-in response to your comment to me: I said if given the chance get a second opinion, but in this case......I'm not an idiot-I know Mr. Ritter was admitted to emergency room and there was no time for a second opinion.....but there are other situations where people so have time and a second opinion should be thought about!

Shane Matthews wrote:

Is there any proof of malpractice, or is the family just pissed off because the doctors couldn't find what was wrong with Mr. Ritter in time? I liked John Ritter too - he seemed like one of the few genuinely nice guys in show business - but standards of proof are standards of proof. Aortic aneurysms are very rare and difficult to diagnose, as the symptoms are similar to those of the much more common heart attack.

By the way, Dianne, Ritter was admitted to the emergency ward. I'm somehow thinking there wasn't time to get a second opinion, know what I mean? It's one thing to question and hold accountable. It's quite another to assume negligence and stick out your hand for compensation when the fact of the matter is you have no idea.

Diane MurfreesboroTN wrote:

Shane, if you read my email correctly-in response to your comment to me: I said if given the chance get a second opinion, but in this case......I'm not an idiot-I know Mr. Ritter was admitted to emergency room and there was no time for a second opinion.....but there are other situations where people so have time and a second opinion should be thought about!

We are not talking about what you feel people should do in general. This thread is not about Diane Murfreesboro's opinion. This thread is about John Ritter's death and the ensuing lawsuit. That's it. That's all. Which you'd have known, had you read the blog's title.

Look Shane:
I am not here to argue with you. I wrote that I was happy for the family and that I felt people if given the chance should get second opinions. Obviously Mr. Ritter was not afforded this opportunity. The "Forum" is to express how you feel about the story such as you did with all your medical bull opinion. So get off your high horse and move on...

Shane Matthews wrote:

<quoted text>

We are not talking about what you feel people should do in general. This thread is not about Diane Murfreesboro's opinion. This thread is about John Ritter's death and the ensuing lawsuit. That's it. That's all. Which you'd have known, had you read the blog's title.

hello everyone

Hello Alex

Alex wrote:

hello everyone

wana chat?, how old r u?

Diane MurfreesboroTN wrote:

Look Shane:
I am not here to argue with you. I wrote that I was happy for the family and that I felt people if given the chance should get second opinions. Obviously Mr. Ritter was not afforded this opportunity. The "Forum" is to express how you feel about the story such as you did with all your medical bull opinion. So get off your high horse and move on...

<quoted text>

Happy for the family, that they have been given a huge sum of money they may not deserve and which may be tantamount to stealing or extortion? If you had proof of the hospital’s misconduct, this would be an appropriate reaction. But the fact is, you don’t. Nor do you care. It’s all about fuh-fuh-feelings. For the defendant’s sake, I hope you never get called to jury duty.

I find the idea that someone, even John Ritter comes into a hospital in critical condition, and a medical team is suppose to beable to tell in a crisis situation, what the correct diagnosis is. It's disgusting that the family should be able to sue and benefit from this. We're sorry for the family's loss, but John would likely have died anyway. No heroics would have saved him even if they had determined the right diagnosis instantly.

y does he need to go to the hospital?

Bob wrote:

I find the idea that someone, even John Ritter comes into a hospital in critical condition, and a medical team is suppose to beable to tell in a crisis situation, what the correct diagnosis is. It's disgusting that the family should be able to sue and benefit from this. We're sorry for the family's loss, but John would likely have died anyway. No heroics would have saved him even if they had determined the right diagnosis instantly.

Very likely. Surgery is the only fix for an aortic aneurysm. It's basically a stroke of the main artery of the body. No symptoms for years, even decades, then all of a sudden--boom!

My first post shows that I agree with those who are critical of the legal action/settlement taken as a consequence of John's death.

This is a political problem which could and should be rectified. Its the Legal profession that needs to be held to account...both here, UK, and USA. Unfortunately the legal profession are quite often the law makers.
Dont forget these settlements do not only involve the plaintiff/defendants. We ALL pay. Even Diane !

As for Alex...what planet is he from ?
Two Shane ( forgot the second names )?????

Having 2nd thoughts as to how easy it would be to stop such "money grubbing", as I see them, actions without deterring those with a genuine grievance.

It just seems to my tiny mind that there most probably is a clear distinction between errors in an emergency situation and those occuring in a routine circumstance.

Even one off errors may well occur with no basic incompetence.

Systematic errors, thats a different matter. As an example, in UK a Surgeon was found responsible for brain damaging several children.

So.. there iS a problem, not really sure how to deal with it.

Shane:
As you said They have been given a huge amount of money they may not deserve. Word is-May. No one knows. You and I were not in the court room.even if it made it to the court room, to know what the details are on Mr. Ritter's case. It is very possible that the doctors were at fault and need to be held accountable. Maybe the Ritter family does have proof of hospital's misconduct, we don't know, most importantly YOU don't know.
I feel I am a fair minded person-you have no right to judge me. If I were called for jury duty, I would be very fair.
You are a very angry man.

Diane MurfreesboroTN wrote:

Shane:
As you said They have been given a huge amount of money they may not deserve. Word is-May. No one knows. You and I were not in the court room.even if it made it to the court room, to know what the details are on Mr. Ritter's case. It is very possible that the doctors were at fault and need to be held accountable. Maybe the Ritter family does have proof of hospital's misconduct, we don't know, most importantly YOU don't know.

I have already admitted that I do not know the circumstances surrounding John's death. You do not know either, which was my original point. Yet you are "so happy for the Ritter family." This is an inappropriate emotion given the lack of information on the subject.

Diane MurfreesboroTN wrote:

I feel I am a fair minded person-you have no right to judge me. If I were called for jury duty, I would be very fair.
You are a very angry man.

What you feel does not matter; what you think does not matter. Only what you know matters. There you go again, talking about feelings. If you were called for jury duty, you would vote according to your heart, not your head - in which case you couldn't possibly be fair.

Why is it some people are so reluctant to use the left side of their brain? Is it because they've never learned to use it?

Mant many people are NOT truly rational as shown by, for instance, the popularity of things like Astrology. I am afraid Dianne that your first post, however you try to rationalise it,WAS an emotional reaction based no doubt on your affection for John Ritter or your disaffection for the medical profession.

The Shanes have been hard on you, but what they are saying is true.

Sowwy.

Sorry Diane, I'm with Shane on this. A ruptured aortic aneurysm has a very high mortality rate even with timely surgery. If a noncelebrity were the unfortunate patient, the family would have received nothing (lawsuits in fact, are hard to win, except in OB-GYN cases or cases involving children). However, if you have funds, you can hire a lawyer on your own instead of taking your case to someone who will only accept it in a case of likely compensation. The hospital certainly would like to avoid the glare of a public trial and therefore agreed to settle. I feel bad for the family's loss, but draining money from an overburdened health care system is not the way.