I read a research article the other day about pain in the proximal thigh following femur IM nailling (ie. what I've got). It was quite interesting although it was related to 1991-1993 surgeries so possibly things are done differently now.
Anyway, in amongst the research paper it mentioned that a) where litigation is involved the patients experienced more pain and b) when the litigation is settled the pain diminshes.
Well, that sound reasonable I thought. Where litigation is involved and it depends to some extent on how much one is suffering, and you have a constant reminder of it with contact from the solicitor etc., it is bound to have an effect on how much you think about the pain.
Then I thought, but if the litigation continues as long as there is substantial pain, but reduces when it is settled, surely this is a chicken and egg situation? It still hurts substantially so the litigation drags on...?
The other thing the article took into account was whether the patients had had the IM nail removed because of pain or 'irritation'. I really don't want to go through another surgery, and if they suggest it then it's going to be a difficult decision to make. Oh well, I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.
In the meantime, every time I think "Oh *** it hurts today!" I will psychoanalyse myself ;-)