>     Note your phrase: "_many_ years ago"!
 >     Also note that you say everything went O.K.  The case was of 
 > very-questionable merit anyhow due to lack of _damages_.
Today it is my understanding that  virtually anything can represent 
"damages", such as mental anguish & stress.
Ex: patient suffers a cardiorespiratory arrest during a procedure and is 
immediately resuscitated without apparent residual ill effects.  The cause of 
the arrest is never determined but is likely due to some other, unrelated 
illness/cause.  Patient and husband sue claiming heinous damages to their sex 
lives, psyches, grass length, automobile color, etc.
This case hasn't been kicked out as "very-questionable".
I'd certainly take issue with you believing that an implied consent of some 
sort doesn't exist by the mere fact a person presents to a hospital.  Every 
state in the country has statutes which presume the acutely unconscious 
person, absent continous care of a physician beforehand, desires diagnosis 
and treatment.  One can operate on those people with good reason, absent 
consent and not be committing an assault.  In point of fact, not doing so 
probably is a violation of the COBRA '86 statute, unless such care is 
reasonably beyond the capabilities of the institution (ie, our rural hospital 
trying to do open heart surgery or neurosurgery).
The "law" is a sticky wicket it would seem.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------