January 19, 2020
"Seth Lookhart performed a dental extraction procedure on a sedated patient while riding a hoverboard and filmed the procedure and distributed the film to persons outside his dental practice."
From "Hoverboarding dentist found guilty of 'unlawful dental acts'" (NBC News).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
55 comments:
And people wonder why there are anti-dentites.
The patient should knock Seth's teeth out.
performed a dental extraction procedure on a sedated patient while riding a hoverboard
How dare he pull something like that.
BFD, it's a hoverboard. Let's see him do an extraction while riding a skateboard.
Only in Trump's America.
My favorite tooth extraction
Filming the patient without consent is the only problem I see.
If the procedure was accomplished without injury, I see no reason the hover board matters.
Hoverboarding dentist found guilty of 'unlawful dental acts'.
Beto hardest hit?
"So you were violated by two people while you were under the gas, so what! "
"Birkel said...
Filming the patient without consent is the only problem I see.
If the procedure was accomplished without injury, I see no reason the hover board matters."
Now do "under the influence of crack cocaine."
The dentists of my childhood were a grim lot. I would have welcomed seeing a hover board around the office.
dont they burst into flames like mini-Tesla's??
wait til Seth gets a vasectomy by his kite-surfing urologist
“Unlawful dental acts”
Who knew!?!?
My dentist performed a cranial manipulation on my post auto accident wife. Reduced the severity and frequency of her migraines. ADA threatened sanction after word got out as he helped another TBI patient similarly. Imagine... you can hit the a_post of an automobile in a 30MPH head on and no one in the Brain Injury field re-sets your cranial plates.
That's absolutely dental.
Siri, Alexa/Ring, Android, Bob, stop spying on me. Oh, wait. Dude, you have walls. Use, abuse the rite of privacy. #Moron
wait til Seth gets a vasectomy by his kite-surfing urologist
That sounds like personal experience.
If the operation was a success, what's the problem?
I hope the next time Trump orders a strike on a terrorist he does it on a hoverboard.
Since his Article II powers don’t mention hoverboards, Nancy would be sure to impeach.
If the operation was a success, what's the problem?
The same reason it's a problem if you find kids playing with fire even if they don't burn the house down.
Curious George:
Explain how "under the influence of crack cocaine" and standing on a hover board are synonymous and I will give your question credence.
Smug
Are you saying children playing with fire is inherently dangerous in the same way (or close enough for your analogy to work) as standing on a hoverboard? Please describe the reason I should take the relative danger of your example to be equivalent to the relative danger of the facts at hand.
Not as good as a circumcision while riding in a Royal Deluxe II
Boomer kids played with fire and fire crackers all the time. Remember the aquanet spraycan blowtorch?
In my mind's eye I pictured them hovering down the highway. The video was disappointing.
Pretty impressive imagine how good a dentist he'd be if he weren't a dumbass.
Must be cabin fever from -40F winters.
If the procedure was accomplished without injury, I see no reason the hover board matters.
It matters because it shows poor judgment. While you're performing a medical procedure is not the time to show off your mad hoverboarding skillz on Instagram. Doctors need to focus on the task at hand...not doing so increases the risk to the patient for no good reason.
Wonder what the other 44 counts were? Not so much as to go investigate, however.
I've had an extraction or two over the years but none of them cost anywhere near ten grand: because my dentists weren't being paid via the good offices of the government somehow, I suppose. Ten thousand dollars.
I just don't get why reckless endangerment is a crime. If nobody actually ends up getting hurt, what's the problem? And what's up with reckless driving. I mean, if I don't actually cause an accident, what's the problem? And why can I get a ticket for texting and driving? I mean, so long as I don't rear-end anyone or career into a pedestrian, what's the problem?
Even if this idiot's behavior only increased the risk to the patient by one-tenth of one percent, what right does he have to add increased risk to her procedure for his own jackassery?
Based on “simply overwhelming” evidence presented by the state, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Michael Wolverton found Seth Lookhart guilty on all 46 charges against him, Wolverton said in a written verdict released Friday. The charges included Medicaid fraud, reckless endangerment and “unlawful dental acts.”
Lookhart and his former office manager, Shauna Cranford, were charged with billing nearly $2 million in intravenous sedation without proper justification. Charges were filed in 2017, and that year the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners suspended Lookhart’s licenses to practice dentistry and sedation.
Cranford accepted a consolidated plea agreement on 40 charges last year.
The dentist is going away for a long time. Sentencing in April.
Smug,
Yes, why exactly should the state fine people that results in no harm?
Perfectly right .
Why is it wrong to drive 75mph in a school zone if I don't actually run over any kids?
I landed the plane safely, so why is it a problem that I had a few drinks before takeoff?
Hoverboarding Dentist
I saw them open for Strawberry Alarm Clock.
dentistry in space Would require equivalent training?
Put him on roster for Mars mission!
Smug,
Your fandom of prosecutions is appreciated.
Let's increase the power of the state.
Right?
Wait.
I prefer small government.
I am a conservative.
Here's my favorite dental scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7R0ZxNgC4&list=RDXB7R0ZxNgC4&start_radio=1
Candybar! Candybar!
Ah yes, that well known conservative cause of getting reckless endangerment removed from the books. I guess I missed that panel at CPAC. Creating new laws increases the power of the state, not prosecuting crimes that have been on the books and commonly prosecuted for decades.
Let's empower the state to prosecute people for victimless crimes.
That sounds fun.
Cop sees a car swerving, pulls it over, finds the mother intoxicated with three small children, but since nobody has been harmed, it's a victimless crime and the cop wishes her a good day. Yeah, can't beat that logic.
Gay sex is bad for the human anatomy.
Let's empower the state to criminalize such behavior.
Wait!
Let's not give the state such power over private citiz an.
If you prefer anal prolapse, you pursue that end.
The state's interests be damned!
Yeah, I guess I must've missed the part where the woman consented to having her procedure done while her dentist was balancing on a hoverboard. Another swing and a miss, Birks, but the gay-baiting was a nice touch.
p.s. And I think you meant "anal sex," not "gay sex." Most of the anal sex that happens in this country happens to straight women. "Gay sex" also includes a lot of oral sex, which is not "bad for the human anatomy," no matter what the women in your life may have told you.
OK, we have hoverboards, slamball and the Cubs winning the World Series. What's the next "Back to the Future" prediction to come true? (Still waiting on those flying cars, fellas...)
I was assured by Bill Clinton that dick sucking is not sex. So nice swing and a miss, Smug. But here I am, determined not to empower the state not to criminalize personally destructive behavior. It's nice that you want to make sure the state has the authority to sanction (or not!) victimless behavior. That's swell.
And here I was willing to restrict the state's criminalization of prostitution, drug use, and less-than-desirable sexual practices. Imagine my surprise when gays demanded the active prosecution of victimless crimes. You know what? I still want the power of the state restricted to crimes that cause actual harm.
NOTE: I believe publication of a patient's image without their consent is criminal, as my first comment above indicates. People should (and even MUST!) control the distribution of their own likeness.
Yes, the dentist has every right to engage in "personally destructive behavior." He can subject his body to whatever harms and risks he chooses. What he can't do is subject other people to unnecessary risk and injury. That's why your "victimless crime" claim is so bogus. The person sedated on the table with sharp instruments in her mouth was put under increased risk of injury because of the dentist's reckless behavior. She's the victim.
What proof have you of increased risk?
Show me the scientific study.
"Because of the deleterious effects of distraction on cognitive processing and the performance of complex tasks and because of the potential impact of distraction on patient safety, it is important to recognize and mitigate the risks of distraction in the OR."
-Statement on Distractions in the Operating Room, American College of Surgeons
#GenerationLookAtMe
J. Farmer said...
Yes, the dentist has every right to engage in "personally destructive behavior." He can subject his body to whatever harms and risks he chooses. What he can't do is subject other people to unnecessary risk and injury. That's why your "victimless crime" claim is so bogus. The person sedated on the table with sharp instruments in her mouth was put under increased risk of injury because of the dentist's reckless behavior. She's the victim.
It might interest you to know that doctors have traditionally experimented on their patients. Medicine is an empirical art.
Now I see no reason for this apparently silly behavior as an "experiment" myself, and I gather he had not the face or the presence of mind to offer it as an explanation, but if he had had a rationale - say it relieved his back tension and enabled him to stand longer with less strain - it might possibly be justifiable and outweigh the suggestion of the authority you have found which agrees with you.
@Nichevo:
It might interest you to know that doctors have traditionally experimented on their patients. Medicine is an empirical art.
I grew up in a medical family, but I am not exactly sure what this has to do with anything. The fact that people did unethical things in the past does not justify doing unethical things in the future.
Now I see no reason for this apparently silly behavior as an "experiment" myself, and I gather he had not the face or the presence of mind to offer it as an explanation, but if he had had a rationale...
I don't dent that a crafty lawyer may have been able to beat that charge, but the fact that he recorded it, distributed it to his friends, and made jokes about it may have made crafting such a defense difficult. It also would not have answered the question of obtaining informed consent from the patient.
I read the link.
"May have" is pretty strong evidence for J Farmer.
J Farmer finally got around to informed consent, which I referenced in my first comment.
Welcome to the party, pal.
J Farmer finally got around to informed consent, which I referenced in my first comment.
Welcome to the party, pal.
I never disagreed with that point. It was certainly a breach of his professional ethics to violate his patient's confidentiality, but that had nothing to do with the criminal charges against him, which obviously are primarily driven by his Medicaid fraud. The video is just a sensationalist attention-grabber.
I read the link.
"May have" is pretty strong evidence for J Farmer.
I have read it as well. Perhaps you can point out where the phrase "may have" is used. But as far as "may have," what I wrote five hours ago: "Even if this idiot's behavior only increased the risk to the patient by one-tenth of one percent, what right does he have to add increased risk to her procedure for his own jackassery?"
So just to sum up the last dozen comments of mine: reckless endangerment is a legitimate crime that should be subject to criminal prosecution. Whew.
Now find the definition for reckless under the statute that indicates any increase in risk counts.
PRO TIP: Don't waste your time. The law will not offend common sense by defining recklessness so broadly.
Post a Comment