Sign in to follow this  
Ann Wheeler

Forced C-Section

Recommended Posts

I am wondering if this was her chosen doctor, or another doctor.....that was brought in for consultation.

Seems she would have had this discussion with the her own GYN, the specialists.....during her pregnancy, since she did research everything. As stated there are variables....

It's very possible she /baby were fine, perhaps the doctor was inexperience in this field didn't quite have the confidence that it would work out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still makes me think of all the doctors who tell women they cannot be sterilized before thirty or so, because "they don't know what they are saying and will change their minds and want to have children."

Yeah, we are too stupid to KNOW we don't want babies we can't afford to raise.

Well, working in a lab, I have seen both tubule ligations and vasectomies reversed. Divorce, new partner, and suddenly those decisions are reversed

Some women might be 100 % sure, but as a tax payer, I am not to fond of paying for those reversals!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would YOU be paying for it?

It's easier to get an abortion than a tubal if you are under 30 with less than 2 kids. That makes NO sense to me. I didn't want ANY kids. But I got to raise 2 because the BC pills didn't work.

Edited by ozland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if this was her chosen doctor, or another doctor.....that was brought in for consultation.

Seems she would have had this discussion with the her own GYN, the specialists.....during her pregnancy, since she did research everything. As stated there are variables....

It's very possible she /baby were fine, perhaps the doctor was inexperience in this field didn't quite have the confidence that it would work out.....

What expert opinion did she have that she had an acceptable risk leveL?

She has two previous C sections-why, just 'lazy doctors?????

Maybe the doctor was very experienced and knew that the risks of allowing her to go into normal labor were to great, either for her, the baby or both

My daughter in law is an OR nurse. She is quite tiny. Her first child wound up being a C section. She tried to avoid a second C section, but being a nurse, she was smart enough to realize that when the baby's hear rate went into stress, it was best to have a C section

Until proven otherwise, I see an ignorant mother, trying to make medical decisions not in either her or her baby's best interest Sorry, a lay person does not always know the best medical choice,. hence we have people that refuse chemo, trying only natural cures, until that cancer has spread

We have hospitals needing to make a child become removed from their parent, that refuses a blood transfusion for their child, based on religious beliefs, that are theirs, and not that of the child, who might very well grow up to be an atheist

Had one mother believe that the cancer ulcerating out of her child's leg was a good thing, showing that the 'evil' was being cast out-yea right Child really did not need treatment, as he wound up needing a coffin instead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless what you seem to think, not ALL women are too ignorant to do our research and actually understand it. Just like all doctors did NOT finish at the top of their class. The incompetents are out there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said all women aren't smart enough to make some of their own medical decisions, or that all doctors are infallible

Working in the medical field, I probably am more aware of medical mistakes then most, and why I often sought second opinions, or even boycotted some doctors completely

Mechanics make mistakes, as do farriers, builders, trainers, vets, so would be rather naive to think of Doctors as being God like

None the less, For the hospital's legal dept to stand behind that doctor, it seems very likely that there were good medical grounds for that C section against the wish of the patient, s hospitals do their damdest to avoid law suits

Sorry, you wound up with two kids you did not wish to raise! Pretty poor track record for that brand of birth control pill! I never had kids until I wanted to, and had no problem having a tubule at 32

Look, if there is some expert opinion on the mother's side of that law suit, stating the risk was acceptable, I'll eat my stance , and join in condemning that doctor, but until then ,I see a professional putting fear of personal repercussions / safety from a law suit, second to the medical needs of that mother and child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in Canada all medical care is funded by taxpayers?

There is plenty of room here for the woman to have done her due diligence in educating herself about having a child naturally after having had 2 C-sections .... but all that education and information (quite possibly) had zero effect on the realities of her ability to birth naturally. This woman may not have been ignorant but I get the feeling she wanted to believe what she wanted to believe and the Dr had to make a medical/surgical decision based in actuality and fact.

Until we know *why* the doctor chose the C-section over her wishes ... we just don't know.

And I lean towards the Doctor, simply because we haven't heard his side of the story! The reason I lean this way is the patient voluntarily shared a portion of her private medical records but has chosen to withhold the part of her records that state why the doctor made his choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted their are cases where some mothers, do as they see fit..in regarding thier belief's, puts the child at harm.Was it in this case?

Based on two previous C-sections , which might not have been necessary , in fact there have been successful deliveries with VBAC. Is this woman sue happy? Was the doctor's history record thoroughly checked? Was this her GYN, surgeon she had chosen? OR was this a surgeon on call just in case? Did this woman really have indecisive capability? If so wouldn't it have been put in her medical records beforehand? Her history of her previous C-sections?

Generally how many woman had C-sections, when it wasn't necessary?

Yes many doctors do go against the law, in regarding their patient's welfare....In many cases it wasn't necessary many of the patients don't sue for malpractice.. It does cost. It is all explained what he risks are etc. all due to the release forms they sign. The hospitals/doctors do have malpractice insurance. The law will stand behind them no matter, usually the cases are settle out of court. In some cases yes the doctors do lose their licenses, some don't and move on.

Edited by Ann Wheeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Doctors and hospitals have malpractice insurance, but that insurance is in place for 'after the fact' In this case, the doctor consulted on the legal strength of going against the patient's wish, before the procedure, I assume, for her own good

Lets see her documentation by her GYN or any other one, that put her in an acceptable risk group, far as having a Vaginal birth after those two C sections. Surely that would hav ebeen determined way before the due date.

Maybe read this data:

Of the 9 most common reasons for obstetric malpractice suits, 6 (#3-#8) allege failure to perform a C-section or failure to perform a C-section sooner. In other words, performing a C-section when there is any doubt about the baby’s health, or even before there is any doubt, will virtually eliminate the chance of being sued successfully in connection with the delivery; it might even make a lawsuit less likely if the plaintiff cannot argue that a C-section should have been performed.

Most of these potential complications are equally distributed across maternal age, maternal race, gestational age, and state of residence, leading to a rising C-section rate across all demographics. The skyrocketing rate is being driven by an attempt to defend or potentially avoid lawsuits, since the majority of lawsuits allege failure to perform a C-section or to perform a C-section sooner. An ever increasing C-section rate is the inevitable result.

Kinda, 'whether the chicken or the egg came first", situation., or' damed if you do and damed if you don't "

here is the entire article

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/csection-rates-association-lawsuits.html

Nearly 77% of obstetrician/gynecologists have been sued at least once in their career and almost half have been sued three or more times. Moreover, virtually one-third of residents will be sued during their residency. Fear of malpractice, in general, may cause physicians to order more tests than medically necessary, refer patients to specialists, and suggest invasive procedures to confirm diagnoses more often than needed. Nearly 40% may prescribe more medications than medically necessary due to concerns of legal liability. The public has responded by escalating the “punishment” associated with malpractice claims where multimillion-dollar jury awards are commonplace.

In other words, in the sue happy climate of today, had the doctor not done the C section, when he thought either mother or baby was in danger, the legal ramifications would have been far greater. Very likley the doctor will not have a successful suit agianst him, as he would have, 100%, had the mother or baby suffered because him NOT performing a c Section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hospitals, the lawyers have bred so much fear that patients now suffer more pain, and may be less safe because doctors are concerned about being sued. “That fear is always there,” said obstetrics professor Dr. Edgar Mandeville. “Everybody walks in mortal fear of being sued.”

Some local doctors say that the surgery is a safer option for them than the risk of a botched delivery that could lead to a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit. The majority of obstetricians in the county no longer have liability coverage because it is too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had the reverse problem here.my oldest was a preemie at 32 weeks due to pre eclampsia.i delivered him with an epidural after being in labor that wouldn't stop for 4 days.he weighed 4lb13oz....which would have made him a whopper full term.not a bad delivery but had some stitches from the forceps because he came out"sunny side up".

my second child was a stressful pregnancy filled with fun things like food poisoning and again...pre eclampsia but he made it to 37 weeks and weighed 5lb12oz and had bacterial pneumonia.he was a c section because he was in distress.i had a spinal block which went wrong and caused leakage of spinal fluid and a massive headache.he also ended up in isolation because they vaccinated me in labor because my blood work showed no immunity to measles {I have no idea how my doctor missed this}at a week old and being breastfed he spiked a temp and had the measles virus.he finally came home at almost a month old and is now a strapping 6'3 and also has aspergers.

my c section was hard and I had to wait on a tubal because they lost my consent form,and t had to be done 30 before delivery for some reason.so I got the depo shot on my doctors advice while my body healed and was going to have my tubes tied when my son was 6 months old.when I went back for my next depo shot a few months later(I had started working and hadn't scheduled my tubal yet)they do the normal checkup and told me I was pregnant.i just remember sobbing my eyes out while they quoted me with statistics and birth control failure.

I switched doctors and had a better pregnancy,weekly stress tests and kept my BP under control.we discussed the VBAC and I was willing to try but they were aware that I have a small pelvis,as did my mom who had to have 2 c sectons.I was in labor for over 24 hours.i tried to avoid the epidural and had contractions 2 minutes apart for almost 3 hours....so I finally got the epidural.i begged for a c section but as long as the baby wasn't in distress they refused.at the 24 hour point they wheeled me into a surgical room and forced me to push until the veins around my eyes hemoraghed and they used forceps to pull my large and purple baby out.scariest moment of my life.they got him breathing but there were worries that they fractured his skull during delivery due to the large cone shaped hematoma on top of his head.he weighed 8lb 3oz.thankfully he is a strong healthy intelligent young man.after he was born they insisted they would do my tubal because the doctor was leaving to go on vacation....so 5 hours after he was born(and I had been in labor for over 24)they wheeld e in for the tubal.....gave me another epidural and asked if I could feel my legs,i was exhausted and numb and I mumbled no and drifted off.i woke up halfway through in extreme pain and I remember the burning smell from the cautery gun.my epidural had stopped working while I was being operated on.i tried to sit up and they tied me down and knocked me out.i ended up with 12 staples where they told me there would be two.

I would much rather have had a doctor who was willing to err on the side of caution and do the c section than the **** they put me through because the doctor was a firm believer in VBAC.i would love to hear his side of the story because I bet it was warranted and she didn't want to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see a "forced" c-section then what they did to a girl I work with.

She lost her baby at 39 weeks. They said he passed 2 days before she went to the doctors, they sent her home and told her to come back in when she goes into labor!

She went to the ER, and while she was delivering the dead baby, who's head was partially out, they told her to stop pushing...there was another baby they had to go deliver.

There are too many horror stories with birth anymore. I had a great doctor last time, who gave in and let me havea c-section. My cervix swelled up and then the baby starting getting stressed.

I would rather have a doctor jump the gun on a c section then wait unit it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of the chance of perforated bladder during a c-section until my daughter who works in NICU, and has attended multiple c-section births, told me that in order to get to the uterus, the abdominal wall is cut, the bladder is taken out and laid across the operating site. Then and only then can the actual 'birth' can be initiated.

She says the bladder is very vulnerable in that position. So It's a risk under the best of circumstances.

I do hope the doctor has his ducks in a row as to why he overrode the mother's wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, the increase in C sections is directly related to the sue rate, in conjunctive with delayed C sections, where the baby or mother are compromised, and the reason a doctor is going to over rule the mother, if he even thinks that the baby's life is in danger, not the other way around, doing a c section, esp against the wish of the mother, purely for convenience or personal arrogance

My first child almost was born dead, due to a delayed C section. I was in labor for three glorious days, had three enemas, labor induced each day, which went not far as dilation, then had labor shut down again for the night, and started up again the following day. I was in agony, with very strong contractions, but not much dilation. One nurse even said, that she did not understand why I had not had a C section yet

Wound up having a high forceps delivery, and could tell by the tension, speed, ect that my son's vital signs were crashing. By that time, my body had nothing left to help push. I was lucky that he was born alive, although he had wounds on each side of his head from the high forceps delivery

Doctors are being sued because of infant deaths, or long term disability, directly related to DELAYED c sections, and most likely that doctor wanted to remove herself from the case, were a C section not done, not because of any arrogance, but rather the fear of the results by not doing a c section in time. Obviously the hospital legal dept backed the doctor up

The woman`s law suit is centered around that bladder trauma, which is a risk of a C section, but I very much doubt that she has any backing , far as that C section not being required, but the headline does make the usual tabloid like heading!

Better to be sued for violation of patient right of consent, then be sued for malpractice and wrongful death, directly related to a DELAYED C SECTION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this