Phobia - A phobia (from the Greek φόβος "fear"), is a strong, persistent fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject.

They should have been monitoring blood pressure and breathing if they were giving IV medications.

IV medication is not necessary for such a procedure, especially with the Nitrous Oxide AND a local anethetic. My daughter had a filling done when she was 4 yrs old and never had IV medication. Granted a cap is not necessarily a 'filling' but should not require much more medication. DEFINATELY not without monitoring.

My daughter's dentist gives me a form to sign stating what procedures he will be using and if any restraints will be used. I am required to sign the form agreeing to the medications, procedures, and practices. I know my daughter's dentist very well as I used to go to the same dentist. I don't go into the office with her but I know I don't need to.

Research your dentist, KNOW what will be happening in your dentist's office, and only agree to what you are comfortable with. There's no reason to panic about not being IN the office with him. If there is any complication, unless you are trained as a first responder, there's probably little that a parent could do besides panic or cause distraction.

This dentist was not as careful as he should have been. It does not mean that the parent should have insisted on staying in the room, as was said already, there's likely little she could have done.

We still are not sure of that. I'm not giving the guy a pass, but I'm not going to set the hounds on him quite yet either. He had all the needed certifications, I can't IMAGINE he didn't have the proper equipment. Now perhaps he didn't use it, perhaps he is a quack, but convicting someone in the court of public opinion with almost no data isn't fair. He's already been ruined by it and will most likely have to move states, or even not practice for a while until the pressure dies down even if he is 100% innocent and did everything 100% correctly.

Once again, the TFP mob is ready to draw and quarter someone based on hearsay, limited evidence and sheer anger over a tragedy.

And again, there are a limited number of people on this board with the knowledge and experience to be critical of the use of anethesia at all in this case. I'm not one of them, and neither are the vast majority of the posters on this thread.

According to the info that Cynthetiq posted "WMAQ reported Monday that the office had no heart monitor or blood pressure cuff, instruments that are required by Illinois law when sedation is involved." In my opinion that is not being careful enough. He may have had the correct lisences but he was not careful enough because he did not monitor her closely enough.

WMAQ = local news idiots

The mother said 'they put that thing on her finger and she had no pulse', well that thing would be a pulse oximeter, so my guess is there is more to it. Hell every dental student gets a blood pressure cuff. Now maybe they didn't USE them which is just as bad, but obviously the story isn't 100% factual. For legal reasons I'm sure the dentist isn't telling his story to the press until the lawyers have their say, as much as he may want to.

Somewhere on this board we have a thread about peoples dealing with the press and how fucked up the stories were that came out vrs what really happened, I don't see how this would be any different.

I can see where you are coming from. I know news stories can be screwed up by leaving out important bits to give a bad impression, using ONLY the facts wanted. I don't think the news people could say this statement if it wasn't true. If he did not use a blood pressure cuff or heart monitor than there was a lack of care. If he did use those things at all, then could the new people say that he didn't?? It would be false to say that he didn't and could be called slander or false reporting, or a number of other things. Now I would like to see WMAQ's actual report. Since it was quoted from another report, could that statement be something that WMAQ quoted from the mother who was lying?? In that case WMAQ wouldn't be lying but would be only quoting a participant of the story. I can see there being a question if that is the case. I am eager to see the final result of this story.

I'm curious as to why the mother was let back into the room and the child just lying on her side?? Why would the staff not have checked on things and called assistance ASAP when they were finished?? Why didn't they check her vitals? And if they did, why was the the MOTHER to discover there was something wrong when the staff should have already known it? Something still doesn't sound right, even if the staff had the monitoring tools necessary.

I agree something doesn't sound right, and the guy may be guilty of malpractice and killing the kid through neglagence but I know how these things go.

I was once accused by a mother of leaving the room while the kid was choking. The witness was whoever it was who took him to me that visit prior. Well the kid did choke (he was very afraid and I dropped a band which got the gag reflex going) it wasn't a big deal I was there with him the whole time, and other than him being very nervous nothing bad happened. Well next time the mom comes in and accuses me and the KID says thats not what happened to the mom and then the mom accused me of getting the kid to lie. Now that was a nothing incident, just think if something bad did happen, how that story could be twisted.

So needless to say I'm not going to take anything said at anyones word.

Although the rest of your post was good, the above reveals an ignorance of the subject. There's just no other way to put it.

I defy you to quote any knowledgeable expert who says dental restorations can be done on ANY child with no more than N2O and a local.

Yeah... that's pretty much the only way to put it... nicely... or at least, not mean...

I think we're just trying to respectfully point out how irresponsible it is to assert single, unique, unrelated experiences as general, absolute fact.

It doesn't look good for the dentist. Not that it bothers me, since it certainly appears that he was negligent.

An appropriate comment here would be that a dental office death is news BECAUSE it's so rare. Most of them do a very good job.

(Can you link to AOL articles?)

This version has some different details

Looks like he may have been guilty, but again, I don't know how much of this was investigation or percautionary. I'll let you know if I find out anything not listed here.

Hey, Ustwo or popo, when they say IV sedation, are they talking about an open line with a drip and a stand and all that? Or do they mean an injection? Not that I guess it matters all that much from a technical standpoint, but calling an injected sedative an "IV" makes it seem much more complicated and scary to the lay newspaper reader.

I have noticed that some people are so willing to blame us, the general public, for our reactions to this tragedy.

Herein lies the problem in my opinion..... A degree doth not a genius make.

Too much college knowledge and not enough common sense can kill.

That many injections plus pills would easily kill a child of 35 pounds. Even with my few years in the medical field and NO degree in medicine I know this.

Go ahead and crucify me.

I will go on record as saying they did not give oral Valium after giving IV Valium. That doesn't make sense.

I agree 100% but the article says injection or iv PLUS pills PLUS gas...

That was what I based my last post on.
"She said Diamond received a triple dose of sedatives - an oral agent, an intravenous drug and nitrous oxide gas - during her treatment."

I base my opinion on the criteria normally used to dictate whether sedation should be used. The number of forms of sedation that the dentist used is unusual unless there are a few specific criteria involved.

1. Can't relax or calm down enough for treatment to be performed safely, even with conscious sedation and other behavior management techniques in order for treatment to be performed safely.
2. Needs oral surgery or other dental treatment that would be difficult for the child to tolerate while awake.
3. Needs a lot of dental work that can best be done in one long appointment rather than many shorter visits.
4. Has a medical, physical or emotional disability that limits his or her ability to understand directions and be treated safely in an outpatient setting.

According to the artical there were none of those things outlined as being an issue. The mother left the room and did not complain in the interviews mentioned of her daughter being undully distressed about it. The daughter was described as being good in school so was probably not mentally retarded to the point of not understanding what was happening. A common cap is not normally an extremely difficult procedure with local anesthetic and the article said it was due to ONE cavity so the length of procedure should not have been especially long.

In the case described in the article it would be unusual for that level of sedation to be necessary. As I mentioned and as others mentioned, I'm sure there is much more to the situation than is told in the news.

If the dentist truely was using 3 forms of sedation, I would be surprised if anyone would say that he did not need to have had an anethesiologist attending.

Oral agent doesn't mean pills, necessarily. Most likely, they mean an injected local anesthetic. This is the kind where they use the machine with the needle tip to tap into the soft tissue inside your mouth and pump an oral numbing agent into it to affect the area of the mouth in which they're working.

And once again, go back to what I said before... "sedative" is a very broad word, medically. There are a lot of drugs that one could unofficially refer to as a "sedative", having nothing to do with all 3 literally meaning "something that puts you to sleep".

Like I said, "an oral agent" almost never means pills. Also, what "that many injections"? There was an IV line. I don't know where you're getting "that many injections" from. And no, none of us "know this". Go ahead and argue with people who have licenses in the field, who are saying there's not enough info to say anything definitive. We don't even know what drugs, specifically, she received. So no, I have to respectfully point out that you do not "know" this, sorry to say.

Really though... why would you post what you posted after 2 pages of people speculating, but then saying "there's no way of knowing because there isn't enough information"- some of them people in general medical fields (and licensed), at least one of which in the very field this story deals with? Just seems like you're trying to be inflammatory or controversial on purpose. *shrug*

I never had my parents in the room when I had major dental surgery, dunno why just never did. I guess it depends on the dentist and their possible reputation. Ours had been around for a couple decades so he knew what was up, don't go to a storefront dental place next time? I guess kids these days don't brush their teeth too well if they need caps by 5. Oh my, what is the world coming to...

Almost always done that way, that wasn't the problem. To someone without a degree who thinks they know better I'm sure it seems a lot :D Seriously though don't assume you know better until you do some research into it. A degree doesn't mean all that much, but it shows you at least have a backround in the field. If you go by what a reporter tells you, and reporters seem to be reporters because they are unqualifed to do anything practical, you are asking to be missled.

I'm not a true sedation expert, I haven't used it since dental school, but IV was almost always a drip of some kind. The benifit being if there is an emergency you can quickly change doses or give another medication.

Dentist's license suspended... up to $40,000 in fines.

Fucking dirtbag. Careless, careless, careless dirtbag.

$40,000 for killing a 5 year old girl? Seems cheap... though the fines aren't the real problem... the family will fleece him in court.

So there you go. Now we know what she was given.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15091116/

Don't be hasty. We could save some tax dollars if we let him practice dentistry while he's intered in prison. Not that he'll see a single day...but it's worth a thought.

Don't say something like 'she would have died anyway if the Mom was in the room'. You don't know that!

and that's a perfect reason why little kids shouldn't be taking that stuff unless they're being monitored and in a hospital...

I was always overly careful with my kids and what was medically done to them. Yes they might get a little anxious in certain situations, but I know they have a lot of common sense and would not allow anyone to put them in a dangerous situation unless absolutely necessary and in the right environment.

First of all... we are not children. There is no need to yell your opinion at me. Chill out.

And as I stated before, the "what ifs" in favor of the girl, had the mother stayed, are impossible to pin down to any kind of positive end. That was my guess at the time, based on what little info was available. Now we know she was almost certainly given a lethal combination of drugs, along with the lack of monitoring equipment. Had the mom been in the room, the monitoring equipment still wouldn't have been used, and she'd still in all reasonable likelihood have died.

And again, if you want to play "what ifs", I can easily say that if the mom stayed, the girl took her last breath as her mom walked out of the room just to pay the bill, which could take way more than long enough (only takes 4 minutes without oxygen) for brain damage to occur- and after 6 minutes, brain death begins. I don't know about you, but i've never paid a bill in under 5 minutes at the dentist.

I stand by what I said. The "what ifs" that create a narrative in which the girl lives would be built on a series of multiple leaps of magnificent coincidence. Too many variables would have to have fallen in line perfectly for her to have lived. On the contrary, only one step in any "what if" is required to cause the unfortunate narrative we're now discussing.

Hospital is unnecessary, as these are professionals licensed to perform these procedures, and they happen constantly, all over the country. Also, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be monitored- the law demands it. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

...*shakes head*...what in the hell are you talking about? Being put in a dangerous situation? What dangerous situation? The kid was lethally overdosed on sedatives. This isn't "look both ways before crossing the street" or "don't talk to strangers" territory... this is a medical practitioner who fucked up in dosing anesthesia for a 35-pound, 5-year-old girl and didn't use the appropriate equipment to tell if things were going awry.

This has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with a kid having common sense, or not allowing themselves to be put in a dangerous situation. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted.

I am happy, though, because we both share some common ground on this issue... we both have no idea what you're talking about.

While I understand not wanting parents in the room while you work (offically I'm working and have 2 parents in the room as I type this) IF she had been there the monitoring equipment MAY have been used. If this guy was cutting corners, he may be less likely to do so if someone was watching, even if that someone doesn't know the procedure.

I think that one important fact that's been overlooked is that the mother is a healthcare professional herself. I think she may be a physician's assistant, but I honestly can't remember her exact title. Regardless, the implication in the initial story is that she has the training to monitor the doctor and his actions (or lack thereof).

As far as the statement about anesthesia only being administered in a hospital with monitoring equipment, that's just shortsited. I had minor surgery at a surgery center in downtown Chicago 3 years ago that's 4 blocks from my office. It was a nice walk over, and it's nowhere near a hospital. As long as someone has the equipment, training and license to correctly administer the anethesia, they should be allowed to do so wherever they deem appropriate.

I won't be surprised to find out that this dentist has some sort of "issue" going on right now, like a substance abuse problem. That seems to be the usual cause of big mistakes like this one, at least in my experience. My office does professional insurance for guys who make big mistakes (and pay big premiums).

Actually... A friends sister died ina Dentist office. She was in for a root canal, and had an allergic reaction to the shot she was given. Since it was in the Dr.'s office they weren't equiped to deal with the serverity of the situation... :( But that's a topic for another discussion....

As for my children, they are never out of my site. If a Dentist or Dr. wouldn't let me in the same room (except for x-rays where I waited outside the door) I would leave with my daughter, and find someone else. I have even brought my younger daughter with me, when my older daughter was having blood drawn. The girls, and I :), are always well behaved, and I have not run into a situation where they have frowned on my following on me being in the room.

On the flip side I have a friend that almost died eating pasta due to an unknown allergic reaction (still unknown) and was saved by a dental office next door with an epi-pen.

The densist above should have at least had an epi pen handy.

If the kids are behaved thats fine, but you should see some of the little monsters we deal with :lol:

I was talking about the mother having common sense in this particular case. Certainly not the 5 year old. And now I read she was in the medical field herself. :rolleyes:

I won't have anything medically done if it's not in a medical center or hospital. Doctors are only human and make mistakes. That's how I see it. So to protect myself.....;)

When I first read this article (and posted it), my inital Mother reaction was to never leave my daughter's side. However, this past Wednesday proved to me that thought is not always in the best interest of my daughter.

She had to have a tooth pulled out and was going to get a novacaine shot. While I was in the room, she tried to get out of the chair, screaming she wanted to go home. I left the room. And although my heart was aching for her as she screamed for me not to go, the dentist and assistant were able to calm her down and get the procedure done without a problem. This would not have happened if I stayed. As much as the thought of anything horrible happening to my children gives me much grief, I had to let go.

One thing that can be done when finding a doctor or dentist is to research their credentials. Find out all that you can, so you can feel comfortable having that person perform necessary procedures on you and your children. and ask questions. If they are doing something you are not sure of, ask. If you don't feel comfortable with the answers, find a new doctor. Her dentist was more than willing to answer my questions and I felt I was leaving her in good hands. Then I hugged her real tight when she came out, minus 1 tooth.

I'm assuming they mean she's a tech in the hospital, as any other designation would have an actual title such as nurse, etc.

However, I'd not read that bit before (somehow I'd missed it) and no one had brought that point up until just now (thanks Ustwo).

So, in THIS specific case of the mother's background in exposure to medical procedure, the monitoring equipment would probably have been brought up as a necessity, had the mother insisted she stay and they allowed her.

Now knowing this, I must concede my point, because had this person of medical background stayed, things may very well have turned out better.