Mother of Nine Sues Massachusetts Hospital After Unauthorized Sterilization

skeptigirl said:
The story screams fishy to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is: you would never insert an IUD just after a C-section without waiting for the uterus heal because you are just asking for adhesions to form. Scar tissue might grow around the IUD and it would have to be surgically removed later. Patients do not bring their own IUDs in to an OR. No doctor would insert the IUD the patient brought in because the doc would be risking liability if infection occurred. How could the OR ascertain the IUD was sterile?
Click to expand...

Right. The hospital knew that. She didn't know that.

And they didn't explain it to her in a way that would result in her understanding the first thing about it. If her version is correct, that is.

Shame on them, if she is telling the truth, and I absolutely hope this results in a lawsuit and serious repercussions against the staff. Any discussion of whether she is a good mother or has good judgment or is a drain on the system is completely and totally irrelevant.

No one can be sterilized without their full consent. No one- be it doctor, parent, husband or boyfriend- has any say over her (or any other woman's or any other man's) reproductive rights but she.

Period. End of story. Her body, her choice.
 
There's nothing in that story which says that she actually did get a tubal ligation. It just says that she believes she got one. And given that she has won a lawsuit in the past for getting pregnant when using expired spermicidal cream (WTF? Spermicidal cream is not something that is guaranteed to work even when it isn't expired!), I think some doubts as to her motives are justified.
 
Last edited:
There is too much to this story that isn't being told, and honestly I cannot entirely believe what this woman or her lawyer has to say as they are now engaged in a lawsuit. Until I hear more from the hospital or even the Doctor involved, I must refrain from making any sort of judgment.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
There is too much to this story that isn't being told, and honestly I cannot entirely believe what this woman or her lawyer has to say as they are now engaged in a lawsuit. Until I hear more from the hospital or even the Doctor involved, I must refrain from making any sort of judgment.
Click to expand...

Voice of reason. If only more were like this.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
There is too much to this story that isn't being told, and honestly I cannot entirely believe what this woman or her lawyer has to say as they are now engaged in a lawsuit. Until I hear more from the hospital or even the Doctor involved, I must refrain from making any sort of judgment.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite. Malpractice or money-grubbing? It could go either way.
 
Rasmus said:
Well, I'd say her financial problems just got solved. The hospital cannot document her consent = guilty.

@ Greg: you're kidding, right? Children are not a commodity that one somehow is entitled to!
Other than that, the compensation here would be relatively high, even if there is no way to prove any intend from the side of the hospital. (Put it that way: How much would I have to pay a parent for them to give up one of their children? That's roughly the minimum range we should be looking at here!)
......
Click to expand...


:boggled:
 
NYCEMT86 said:
There is too much to this story that isn't being told, and honestly I cannot entirely believe what this woman or her lawyer has to say as they are now engaged in a lawsuit. Until I hear more from the hospital or even the Doctor involved, I must refrain from making any sort of judgment.
Click to expand...

That was precisely my first thought.
 
skeptigirl said:
He we go again with another one of these threads where skeptics, who mostly know the news is rarely accurate, discuss a report which only describes one side of the story, act as if it is a given the story is actually correct in every detail.
Click to expand...

Really? So the guy who shot up the ABB factory yesterday didn't kill 3 people, as reported, but actually only killed 1? The nursing home that was fined $1.6 million by the state was actually fined $4 million? The news reported that Alabama won the national title last night, when in fact it was USC who won? Etc...

I sounds like your ridiculous claims are the only thing that are rarely accurate.
 
Dorian Gray said:
So, what do you more reasonable and sane people think about this situation?
Click to expand...

The hospital owes the woman approximately a trillion dollars in damages.

Every medical person involved loses their licence immediately and permanently.

All federal funding going to that hospital is cut off for a period of at least three years.

Performing unauthorized medical procedures on unconsenting patients is a crash-and-burn offense according to the NIH.
 
skeptigirl said:
IF the story is accurate.

He we go again with another one of these threads where skeptics, who mostly know the news is rarely accurate, discuss a report which only describes one side of the story, act as if it is a given the story is actually correct in every detail. :rolleyes:

The story screams fishy to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is: you would never insert an IUD just after a C-section without waiting for the uterus heal because you are just asking for adhesions to form. Scar tissue might grow around the IUD and it would have to be surgically removed later. Patients do not bring their own IUDs in to an OR. No doctor would insert the IUD the patient brought in because the doc would be risking liability if infection occurred. How could the OR ascertain the IUD was sterile?
Click to expand...

I think the same thing. I'd like to hear more about the hospitals side of the story. She may have asked and changed her mind but never signed any forms.

They are liable though. She's better off because now she'll get a settlement to take care of her kids. Win for everyone.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
There is too much to this story that isn't being told, and honestly I cannot entirely believe what this woman or her lawyer has to say as they are now engaged in a lawsuit. Until I hear more from the hospital or even the Doctor involved, I must refrain from making any sort of judgment.
Click to expand...


At the very least, I would like to see evidence for this allegation:

"The issue here is a little broader and more involved than what people think," Borten said, noting how sterilizations have been used throughout history to control populations deemed unsavory. "The issue is, who has the right to permanently sterilize a woman? Or a man?"
Click to expand...

Hospital screws up mightily - yeah, it looks that way.

Hospital intentionally sterilizes member of unsavory population group - no sir, YOU need to prove that.
 
Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records.
Click to expand...
Call me cynical but I think this may explain what happened after the surgery. I suspect that she somehow found out that the forms she signed were missing, and smelling money, called a lawyer. I predict that unless the forms turn up, no matter what the doctor remembers her signing (if he remembers at all), they'll settle out of court for a bunch of money.
 
This is very gruesome if the allegation is true.

The alleged situation sounds unlikely, but I will await for the courts to hear it out.

My uneducated assumption is a mix of miscommunication and jumping on the chance to sue. From what little I know my guess on the most likely circumstance is: Woman is uneducated about IUD. She plans on having after giving birth and informs the doctor. She brings in an IUD not understanding because of miscommunication that it will not be happening immediately after birth. The birth and C-section is performed. Something goes wrong. Woman is rendered infertile. Hospital staff informs woman that they rendered her infertile. She took it to mean they purposely did so. Horrified she seeks a lawyer. Hospital staff is informed by a lawyer of a suit and at first attempts to find paperwork concerning a sterilisation operation and fails to turn up such.

Malfeasance is not necessary where human error will do.

If her allegation is true, the intentionally conspiring staff deserve to never practice medicine again, jail time, and the hopsital owes her hefty damages.
 
The Fallen Serpent said:
My uneducated assumption is a mix of miscommunication and jumping on the chance to sue. From what little I know my guess on the most likely circumstance is: Woman is uneducated about IUD. She plans on having after giving birth and informs the doctor. She brings in an IUD not understanding because of miscommunication that it will not be happening immediately after birth. The birth and C-section is performed. Something goes wrong. Woman is rendered infertile.
Click to expand...

Well, this would be easy enough to prove or disprove.

Her allegations are rather more specific than "they rendered me infertile"; you can't accidentally perform a tubal ligation, any more than you can "accidentally" replace a light bulb. (Break one, yes. Replacement requires forethought.) The chances of "accidentally" cutting both her tubes in a way that looks just like a tubal ligation are infinitesimal.

And, of course, an error of that magnitude should destroy careers and generate millions in compensatory damages anyway....
 
Yes, I would agree my assumption would be easy to prove or disprove. The news article is as usual lacking in information that would quickly change my assumptions. How does she know it was a tubal ligation? Does she claim the hospital claims to have done so? Did she seek medical confirmation, presumably from a different hospital? People have been known to do their own medical research using online resources and coming to their own conclusions. Not saying that this what she has done, but I suspect on the scant knowlege we have that the claim of tubal ligation came from her or her lawyer and not directly from someone who has examined her.

Miscommunication on top of a medical error rather than purposeful assult and mutilation will remain my assumption for time being. For what little that is worth of course.

Of course, this being a law suit it serves both interests to remain quiet for now. I doubt we will see much in the way of documentation unless the proceedings are open. Presumably most of this will remain confidential and court sealed as a matter of medical privacy depending ont he local laws where her suit takes place.
 
She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation.
Click to expand...

WTF! :mad:

She doesn't have enough cash to adopt, but she wants to keep squeezin' 'em out?
 
Skeptical Greg said:
:boggled:
Click to expand...

Hm?

I wasn't suggesting that you could actually buy children from someone, or should be allowed to do that.

But suppose you'd ask 1000 parents (who wanted to be parents) how much money you'd have to offer them to be allowed to simply take away one of their children from them.

That is fairly close to what has been done to this woman /again, assuming that her story is true, of course.) You might want to flesh out the scenario and make it more detailed to overcome of its shortcomings - but how else would you arrive at a fair sum to offer her?

If I steal your VCR or computer and can't give it back to you, wouldn't it be fair if I gave you enough money to replace it? And if oyu couldn't buy that particualr kind of computer anymore, wouldn't it be fair if I gave you an amount of money for which you would possibly have sold me the machine had I not stolen it?

I didn't mean to suggest somone should jsut go and buy her a new child. I was trying to say pretty much the same as DrKitten did with the somewhat clearer "approximately a trillion dollars".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom