Various Topics on Alternative Medicine

... ..i ..har..

Medical Malpractice Rates May have Killed a Child

Posted on 5/09/2005 1:15:46 PM PDT by elfman2

My wife is a nurse at a rural hospital, and relayed a
disturbing story to me last night that she learned from
other nurses.

A slightly obese lady came into the ER complaining of
pelvic pains. The ER doc did and exam, and was surprised
to feel a little foot protruding from the cervix and
moving. He also found meconium (indicating that the baby
p***ed stool in the womb and could be in further
distress).

This hospital does not do births, and has only one doctor
on staff with such experience. He was immediately called
while nurses hooked up a fetal heart monitor. The ER
attending explained the situation, and the former OB doc
advised him to wait for him to come in. (BTW, he quit his
obstetrics practice because of malpractice rates.)

The baby's heart was strong over the hour it took for the
former OB doctor to arrive. By that time, two feet were
protruding from the cervix. The nurses say that as he
took his time, very slowly pulling the baby down the
birth canal, the heart rate began to deteriorate. After I
don't know how long, the baby's heart stopped. Rather
than expedite the extraction or attempt any
resuscitation, the former OB doctor simply stopped the
delivery and left. According to the nurses, as freak'n
unbelievable as it sounds, both physicians just
instructed the ER nurses to extract the fetus and left
(with a 3rd doc).

The nurses present are still pretty messed up over this.
The doctor then insisted that the baby was not alive when
he arrived. The nurses knew there was a heart rate and
they charted its drop. They estimated the baby at 23
weeks (I may have that wrong, but it was advanced) and
they said that they were torn on whether or not to give
CPR after the doctors left because the baby's color was
pretty normal, not blue. The said it looked alive.

The nurses later found out that all three doctors just
left and went out to breakfast together.

My wife couldn't understand how they could screw up so
bad.. I told her that I thought the doctors didn't want
the baby to live. It would have cost them 10's of $1000s,
maybe over $100,000 across multiple years if they ever
delivered a baby there. This way, even if they are sued
for malpractice in this case, and there insurance picks
it up, it was technically never born so their rates will
not go up, at least not as much as they would if they are
delivering babies

I'm not a pro-life activist by any measure, I'm not even
fully aligned with the pro-life agenda, but this seems
much more like murder than malpractice. And I think it's
a result of the way people and their lawyers can take
endless free potshots at doctors for ambiguous decision
until a sympathetic jury awards them millions. So these
guys become so focused on defensive medicine that they
don't see that it crosses the line to murder.

I don't see anyplace in nature where one side can take
free shots at another until it acquiesces so I don't see
why losers of lawsuits shouldn't have to pay court and
attorney fees. And I think attorneys who work on
contingency should be equally responsible. Good cases
would still be tried for their full value, but litigation
rates would settle down to a reasonable levels,
malpractice rates would go down, and doctors could stop
practicing very expensive (and cruel) defensive medicine.

This if one screwed up case, but probably not that rare.

Posted on 5/09/2005 1:15:47 PM PDT by elfman2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

..um.. ..cha..

1. This entire episode seems pretty unlikely, in a number of ways.
2. Malpractice insurance accounts for less than 1% of all US healthcare
costs. Less than 1%. It's actually pretty inexpensive given that our
tort system is the only thing that eventually stops some bad medicine.
3. It's true that OBs pay much more for malpractice than do most other
docs - but they still make very good livings.

Grumpy Richard

--
GrumpyRichard.com
A daily chronicle of honest medicine

"God Heals, and the doctor takes the fees"
-Ben Franklin

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Medical Malpractice Rates May have Killed a Child
>
> Posted on 5/09/2005 1:15:46 PM PDT by elfman2
>
> My wife is a nurse at a rural hospital, and relayed a
> disturbing story to me last night that she learned from
> other nurses.
>
> A slightly obese lady came into the ER complaining of
> pelvic pains. The ER doc did and exam, and was surprised
> to feel a little foot protruding from the cervix and
> moving. He also found meconium (indicating that the baby
> p***ed stool in the womb and could be in further
> distress).
>
> This hospital does not do births, and has only one doctor
> on staff with such experience. He was immediately called
> while nurses hooked up a fetal heart monitor. The ER
> attending explained the situation, and the former OB doc
> advised him to wait for him to come in. (BTW, he quit his
> obstetrics practice because of malpractice rates.)
>
> The baby's heart was strong over the hour it took for the
> former OB doctor to arrive. By that time, two feet were
> protruding from the cervix. The nurses say that as he
> took his time, very slowly pulling the baby down the
> birth canal, the heart rate began to deteriorate. After I
> don't know how long, the baby's heart stopped. Rather
> than expedite the extraction or attempt any
> resuscitation, the former OB doctor simply stopped the
> delivery and left. According to the nurses, as freak'n
> unbelievable as it sounds, both physicians just
> instructed the ER nurses to extract the fetus and left
> (with a 3rd doc).
>
> The nurses present are still pretty messed up over this.
> The doctor then insisted that the baby was not alive when
> he arrived. The nurses knew there was a heart rate and
> they charted its drop. They estimated the baby at 23
> weeks (I may have that wrong, but it was advanced) and
> they said that they were torn on whether or not to give
> CPR after the doctors left because the baby's color was
> pretty normal, not blue. The said it looked alive.
>
> The nurses later found out that all three doctors just
> left and went out to breakfast together.
>
> My wife couldn't understand how they could screw up so
> bad.. I told her that I thought the doctors didn't want
> the baby to live. It would have cost them 10's of $1000s,
> maybe over $100,000 across multiple years if they ever
> delivered a baby there. This way, even if they are sued
> for malpractice in this case, and there insurance picks
> it up, it was technically never born so their rates will
> not go up, at least not as much as they would if they are
> delivering babies
>
> I'm not a pro-life activist by any measure, I'm not even
> fully aligned with the pro-life agenda, but this seems
> much more like murder than malpractice. And I think it's
> a result of the way people and their lawyers can take
> endless free potshots at doctors for ambiguous decision
> until a sympathetic jury awards them millions. So these
> guys become so focused on defensive medicine that they
> don't see that it crosses the line to murder.
>
> I don't see anyplace in nature where one side can take
> free shots at another until it acquiesces so I don't see
> why losers of lawsuits shouldn't have to pay court and
> attorney fees. And I think attorneys who work on
> contingency should be equally responsible. Good cases
> would still be tried for their full value, but litigation
> rates would settle down to a reasonable levels,
> malpractice rates would go down, and doctors could stop
> practicing very expensive (and cruel) defensive medicine.
>
> This if one screwed up case, but probably not that rare.
>
> Posted on 5/09/2005 1:15:47 PM PDT by elfman2
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> End of forwarded message
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
>
> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
> peace, but a sword.
> "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
> daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
> law.
> "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
> - Matthew 10:34-36.
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
>
> Since newsgroup posts are being removed
> by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
> this post may be reposted several times.

..itteringO..

CPR?
My God.

They should have checked
Her CRP levels first.

Since 1998, the AMA, APA, ANIU advocate
As a first-tier screen,
Gold Standard.

..easd59.. ..ail.c..

Dear Dr. Maharaj,

I'm not a doctor, but it's doubtful that any doctor could 'pull' a baby
out of a mother simply by yanking at the feet because of the delay
until the head is ready to be born. If this was possible the nurses
would have been able to accomplish it themselves. I should think that
there were other factors considered in the OB's mind i.e. the
likelihood of its survival, the lengthy repair of any emergency large
cuts into the woman.

For the feet to be out the baby must have come some way down. As a
prem baby its body will have been small enough to descend quite far and
yet the baby's head might still be inside awaiting contractions to open
up the cervix fully, this could take many hours. The squeezing on the
placenta during this essential stage is likely to have starved the baby
of oxygen for long periods. It does not happen to babies which come
head first as the baby does not come anyway out until the cervix is
fully dilated and because of this the cord is not put under the same
stresses (unless is slips through on a contraction).

It seems to me that the doctor may have had an appalling bedside manner
and lacked communication with the nursing staff and the mother.

It may have been irresponsible for nurses to have revived the baby.
Maybe a caesarean would have been an answer early on, but with no
special care baby facilities how could a major operation be warranted
for no outcome? It also sounded like it was too late to send her to
another hospital with special care baby facilities. We can't know fully
as we weren't there to judge the situation and ER nurses are not
trained experienced midwives. They all seem to have become victims of
cir***stance beyond their control, even the mother, and there was panic
and some self recrimination amongst the nurses.

Maybe Dr Maharaj you could suggest to the man who wrote this post that
his wife seeks a meeting with the staff members concerned, so that they
could debrief and explore what else could be done if such a situation
happens again. She needs to know that there was nothing else she
personally could have done and I expect that the mother does too. Life
is not always about money.

In Christ's love
Carol T