Pregnant Mom Awarded 16 Million for Traumatic Birth -(Pregnant Moms Advised)

[IfIOnly]

The problem with just talking about these things (with your midwife or doctor) is that your doctor isn't going to be there when you walk through the doors of the hospital. You are going to have to deal with Random Nurse. And Random Nurse has no idea what you talked about with your doctor nor does she have the time to sit at your bedside and chat through your feelings about ______ (fill in the blank: continuous monitoring, pitocin, epidurals, staying in bed on your back, etc). That birth plan is what quickly and easily communicates that you are "one of those moms" to Random Nurse so that she pauses and asks permission before barreling ahead with all the routine interventions.

 

I have also long suspected that having your birth plan forwarded to the hospital ahead of time prevents you from winding up with Nightmare Nurse. If you call up to L&D to tell them you're on the way and they see that birth plan, the chances are better that Nightmare Nurse won't be willing to deal with "one of those moms" and a more tolerant nurse will be assigned instead.

 

But nothing helps in a hospital like Brookwood. If a hospital has a 50% c-section rate when they are not the hospital treating the poor or the high-risk cases (UAB & St.Vincent's take on that role in the Birmingham area - Brookwood is the upscale Baptist hospital that caters to the wealthy over-the-mountain moms) then that should be a huge red flag that something is wrong with the culture of that hospital. And no birth plan will prevent Crazy Nurse from trying to hold your baby inside while they wait for the doctor to get there. Only litigation can force hospitals to change their protocols to prevent those kinds of crazy, dangerous practices.

I had all my paperwork and birth plan submitted beforehand. They were respectful of my wishes and even mentioned when I got there that they gave me nurses who would best fit my birthing style. Even so, most of those nurses were dumber than I could have ever expected when it came to supporting a woman laboring naturally and about the labor process itself. I think I have just been spoiled by midwifery care. They probably rock in the mainstream world. Ha! Edited August 11, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[Bluegoat]

I think perhaps a birth plan is a kind of response to a less than ideal situation.  Ideally there should be a faily accepted practice of birth that a women can come in and expect best practices, experienced birth attendants who can really support them in a variety of ways, depending on how things unfold, and will give advice that people can rely on without having to second guess it every moment.  And a enough continuity of care that there will always be some experienced people supporting that know the laboring women.  So it becomes what it is, and evolving situation where people do what is appropriate at the moment.

 

Birth plans are what you need when those things don't exist, but they create their own expectations, and I don't mean in the staff. 

 

Probably this can't be done in the hospital model we have now, but we don't even have real labour support now which should at least be possible.

[Murphy101]

I am so glad she won her lawsuit, I didn't expect her to, honestly. I think she won because she could prove permanent damage. I know of similar stories where no lawyer would even take it, due to no permanent physical damage. PTSD isn't enough.

This. Unless they cause permanent PHYSICAL damage, and often not even then, they can do any damn thing they want to a pregnant woman in labor and it is highly unlikely she will ever see so much as an apology. The general attitude is a mom should just be glad their assholery and ignorance didn't kill her or her baby and she should shut up about expecting crazy things like evidence based and medical association recommended medical treatment or basic civil rights.

 

Yep. I'm 7.5 months pregnant. Don't even get me started.

[TranquilMind]

This. Unless they cause permanent PHYSICAL damage, and often not even then, they can do any damn thing they want to a pregnant woman in labor and it is highly unlikely she will ever see so much as an apology. The general attitude is a mom should just be glad their assholery and ignorance didn't kill her or her baby and she should shut up about expecting crazy things like evidence based and medical association recommended medical treatment or basic civil rights.

 

Yep. I'm 7.5 months pregnant. Don't even get me started.

 

I hear you.

 

When I read stories like this one and comments like you just made by those I presume have been there in the hospital environment, I am so very glad we birthed at home. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I feel bad for the woman, but I think the judgement was WAY out of line. Yeah she had a bad birth. Yes she has pain to this day, but who is really to say that that wouldn't have happened anyway with a "perfect" birth. 

 

I just think 16 million is WAY too high of a number for what happened. I honestly think 1 million is too high, but it is in the range of being acceptable. No one died. Everyone is alive. She should be thankful for what she has and not get rich from it. How many poor people are not going to have care now because of this judgement? I hope it gets thrown out in appeals. 

 

1.) The hospital was responsible for life long pain and suffering (nerve pain and trauma).

2.) They did so willfully.

3.) Punitive damages are used to *force* individuals/companies to understand the consequences of their actions where they feel it the most - their wallets.

[Murphy101]

To the point on the case in the OP, the nurse pushing baby back until the dr could get there -

 

I actually had a nurse once say very condescendingly to me about a VERY quick delivery "Couldn't you hold it in until someone got here?" I was literally still shaking like I had hypothermia from going from 0-10 in less than 3 minutes and still passing the afterbirth, so my response was not very gracious. "No, dumbass, because it's a baby, not a bowel movement." And my husband and OB promptly decided that nurse needed to get out of my delivery room. She was too stupid to even work on the floor if she doesn't know enough about female anatomy to know that women can't even "hold it in" for their periods, much less a baby.

 

And for the record, I had just finished being on pitocin for 8 hours with zero progress. My OB checked my cervix (0 and barely softened) and decided I was just no where near anything and had said I could go home and we'd try again in a week if I didn't go into labor on my own. I sat up on the side of the bed to get dressed, put on my shirt and stood up to take my pants from dh. I gasped on OMG and yelped at dh for help, he swung my legs back onto the bed, screamed out the door for my Ob and baby was already out on the bed between my shaking legs. I never pushed once. And THAT was when this idiot nurse felt the need to be critical of my "holding" ability.

 

NOW we laugh about it and make jokes about it. But yeah, I didn't find her even slightly amusing at the time and it's a bit scary to think how her attitude and ignorance might have affected my delivery.

[forty-two]

My third baby didn't wait for the doctor - the resident broke my water around 9-10cm and he was born two minutes later. I remember the nurse or resident saying something about "can you wait for the doctor?!" but I pretty emphatically said No!! and that was that - they got down to the business of catching the baby. I just cannot fathom forcing the baby to stay in like that :svengo:.

 

Wrt c-section rates, that hospital had a 46% section rate, which really worried me (but it was where my high risk practice did births), but actually turned out to not be a bad thing. I talked to one of my nurses about it and she said the hospital was unhappy with that rate and was actively working to reduce it. And certainly the posters around supported lower intervention births (I spent a lot of time there getting non-stress tests and such, so plenty of time to read all the various things on the walls) and the nurses were great wrt my doula and birth plan. I had a good birth there (so much different from my first hospital birth, where I "wasn't permitted" to move at all during a pitocin-induced labor, which pushed me to have a home birth with my second).

 

Wrt hospitals treating the moms like children, I didn't have any problems with that that I noticed with ds in the special care nursery, but when he had to go back to the hospital right after coming home, I did notice just how much *respect* I got from the pediatric nurses and doctors as his mother. They treated me as a full partner in his care - no hint of me-as-patient cluttering things up (honestly I'm pretty sure it never really connected that the mom of a 4 day old infant was herself 4 days out from giving birth) - and it was so *different* from the complete non-entity I was when my oldest was in the nicu (at a different, far worse, hospital). (My dd was in the nicu for 36 hours and the *only* information I got from anyone at the hospital about her was from two nurses gossiping over my head like I wasn't there. I didn't even get to *see* her at all in that time. I was upset about that for her whole first year.)

[Guest]

Not understanding the basics of a fetal ejection reflex is a bit of a miss for a labor and delivery nurse, isn't it? Sheeeeeesh.

 

Again, SO glad for my midwives. And thankful that the OB at my last two hospital births wasn't a jerk - some of the floor nurses were, but not him.

[MinivanMom]

I think perhaps a birth plan is a kind of response to a less than ideal situation.  Ideally there should be a faily accepted practice of birth that a women can come in and expect best practices, experienced birth attendants who can really support them in a variety of ways, depending on how things unfold, and will give advice that people can rely on without having to second guess it every moment.  And a enough continuity of care that there will always be some experienced people supporting that know the laboring women.  So it becomes what it is, and evolving situation where people do what is appropriate at the moment.

 

Birth plans are what you need when those things don't exist, but they create their own expectations, and I don't mean in the staff. 

 

Probably this can't be done in the hospital model we have now, but we don't even have real labour support now which should at least be possible.

 

Absolutely. I had birth plans when my first kids were born in the hospital, because it was a less than ideal situation. Obviously that wasn't necessary during my homebirths. 

 

My last birth had to take place in the hospital, but it was a teaching hospital that follows research-based best practices. They are very aggressive about respecting the dignity and choice of mothers. It never even occurred to me to make a birth plan, and they absolutely treated me with dignity and respect. I was told over and over that everything was my choice and to just speak up. At one point I had a consultation with 4 doctors (yes, it was a complicated birth) while my nurse sat off in the corner. I was asking a lot of questions about the potential side-effects of a necessary medication. After the doctors walked out, my nurse immediately jumped on me to verify that I understood the information and that I really was okay with the dosage I had just agreed to. She was concerned that the situation itself was pressuring (mom in crisis situation consulting w/4 doctors at once) and wanted to be sure that I didn't feel pressured or railroaded in anyway.

 

That's what good maternity practice looks like. Follow research-based practices; respect the mother's autonomy; be nice; be kind; be supportive. Just having the nurses and doctors be nice to the mother makes all the difference in the world.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I feel bad for the woman, but I think the judgement was WAY out of line. Yeah she had a bad birth. Yes she has pain to this day, but who is really to say that that wouldn't have happened anyway with a "perfect" birth. 

 

I just think 16 million is WAY too high of a number for what happened. I honestly think 1 million is too high, but it is in the range of being acceptable. No one died. Everyone is alive. She should be thankful for what she has and not get rich from it. How many poor people are not going to have care now because of this judgement? I hope it gets thrown out in appeals. 

Really?  So, they can treat her like Josef Mengele treated pregnant prisoners at Auschwitz and Birkenau and not suffer any consequences?  Permanent damage is hunky dory with you?  I think they were too easy on the hospital.  The only way change will happen is to hit them in the pocketbooks.  Nobody got rich here.  There is a reason why this is a landmark case ... lawyers typically don't take these cases. 

 

Did you somehow miss the part where they forcefully held the baby inside of her when she was crowning, causing her permanent damage? How can you think that's no big deal just because they didn't kill her while they were at it?

Yep!!!

 

The hospital also admitted (in a different article I read) that they only follow a mother's wishes if they think it is in the mother's best interest. In other words, although that sounds nice, they do not allow for informed consent or refusal. They flat out admitted it. You can't force treatment on mentally sound people, and that includes pregnant women. Something doctors don't seem to understand. 

 

I do hope there will be some changes.  But, in the South, I doubt it will happen.  A friend of mine became a midwife after the horrible things that happened to her in  a hospital after her last child was born.  The staff out and out lied and nearly caused CPS to take the baby without cause, all because she was an informed patient exercising her rights to informed consent/refusal.   I struggled for years as a childbirth educator trying to convince my students to vote with their pocketbooks.  Don't stay with the nice, charming doctor who plays the "dead baby" card to get his patients to be compliant and accept procedures and treatments that were not evidence-based. 

 

I cam across this article in my facebook feed from ImprovingBirth.org ... what-we-can-learn-from-jehovahs-witnesses-about-obstetrical-violence-and-autonomy-during-pregnancy. 

[Another Lynn]

This. Unless they cause permanent PHYSICAL damage, and often not even then, they can do any damn thing they want to a pregnant woman in labor and it is highly unlikely she will ever see so much as an apology. The general attitude is a mom should just be glad their assholery and ignorance didn't kill her or her baby and she should shut up about expecting crazy things like evidence based and medical association recommended medical treatment or basic civil rights.

 

Yep. I'm 7.5 months pregnant. Don't even get me started.

Oh my goodness!!!! Congratulations!!! I didn't know you were expecting - how exciting!

[tm919]

The comments.  Oh my Lord.  Don't read Paula's comment if you don't have a strong stomach.

Ugh, I read it.  I never tell new moms the story about having my kids (both in the hospital)-- not because I think it's extraordinary but because I've come to think it's way too common, and I can't really tell the pregnant woman "Don't worry, nothing like that will happen to you." Because those kind of things -- and worse -- really might happen. 

 

For me, the first time the doctor got confused and left stuff inside (???)... I was CRAWLING for a week before I knew something was really wrong. The doctor looked me in the eye and said "There was no damage done." The second time they didn't do anything wrong, the baby just didn't cooperate. No one was in the room and she decided to be born anyway. The doctor barely made it in time. Someone out there has perfect birth stories for all their kids, but I haven't met them yet.

Edited August 11, 2016 by tm919

[ktgrok]

 

I am not wholly unsympathetic that doctors may sometimes think that patients are asking for something wholly unreasonable or that they cannot in good conscience do.  Patients can have unrealistic expectations, or want things that are really damaging or unhealthy, or fall prey to scams and misinformation.    

 

And yet, the patient still has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse consent. If I have cancer and refuse treatment, the doctor can't force me to have it against my will. If I have an infection, they can't force me to take antibiotics, even if they will save my life. We recognize that people have the right to refuse treatment, even life saving treatment, even if the person's reasons are wrong. They still have that right to bodily autonomy. But somehow, when it's a pregnant woman, that is no longer the case. Doctors think they can act "in her best interests" even without consent, and that's total BS. It doesn't matter if the woman's wishes are dumb, or even dangerous, he still doesn't have a right to force care upon her. 

[MinivanMom]

And yet, the patient still has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse consent. If I have cancer and refuse treatment, the doctor can't force me to have it against my will. If I have an infection, they can't force me to take antibiotics, even if they will save my life. We recognize that people have the right to refuse treatment, even life saving treatment, even if the person's reasons are wrong. They still have that right to bodily autonomy. But somehow, when it's a pregnant woman, that is no longer the case. Doctors think they can act "in her best interests" even without consent, and that's total BS. It doesn't matter if the woman's wishes are dumb, or even dangerous, he still doesn't have a right to force care upon her. 

 

This.

[Excelsior! Academy]

This topic makes my blood boil!!  When my last child was born my doctor was in a c-section.  I had had pitocin, but no pain meds so I felt everything.  I told the nurse dd was ready to be born so she called the doctor.  He said to give him 15 minutes.  I started pushing before she even got off the phone and had the 3rd degree tear to show for it.  I. regret. nothing.  

[luuknam]

And yet, the patient still has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse consent. If I have cancer and refuse treatment, the doctor can't force me to have it against my will. If I have an infection, they can't force me to take antibiotics, even if they will save my life. We recognize that people have the right to refuse treatment, even life saving treatment, even if the person's reasons are wrong. They still have that right to bodily autonomy. But somehow, when it's a pregnant woman, that is no longer the case. Doctors think they can act "in her best interests" even without consent, and that's total BS. It doesn't matter if the woman's wishes are dumb, or even dangerous, he still doesn't have a right to force care upon her. 

 

Right, but, there's also the baby's best interest, and the courts generally agree that parents can't just refuse life-saving treatment to their children. That said, keeping a baby in does not protect the baby.

[ktgrok]

Right, but, there's also the baby's best interest, and the courts generally agree that parents can't just refuse life-saving treatment to their children. That said, keeping a baby in does not protect the baby.

 

Actually, there is legal precedent that you cannot force treatment on the mother to save the child. Just like you can't force a parent to donate a kidney to save their child with kidney failure. Once the baby is born you can legally force treatment in certain cases, but when it is still in the mother treating the baby means forcing treatment on an adult with the right to refuse, so legally it can't be done. 

 

Of course it IS, all the damn time, every single day, but courts have said it is wrong and illegal. 

[Murphy101]

Right, but, there's also the baby's best interest, and the courts generally agree that parents can't just refuse life-saving treatment to their children. That said, keeping a baby in does not protect the baby.

The courts don't give one damn about the baby's best interest until they exit the birth canal.

 

The courts have repeatedly declared that the mother's wants (not even medical need, simply her choice) takes precedent over anything growing inside of her, be it cancer or a baby.

 

So I call a big screaming load of BS on any claims the courts care more about the baby inside of me than I do.

 

Yes, things can get complicated with birthing even when a labor and delivery is *properly* handled, and it doesn't mean the mother or the medical staff are bad when that happens.

 

This woman the OP references won 16 million because what happened had nothing to do with a natural complication. The staff decisions and actions directly caused harm. We do for a fact know that what they did was stupid, reckless, and endangered the life of both mother and child. I don't think the award was high enough. I hope no one that was involved in her delivery is able to work in medicine again.

 

To suggest that bcause we never know if something could have gone badly we shouldn't severely punish those who purposely and recklessly do things that we know are dangerous to patients is ridiculous. And what's more, again, I guarantee you people wouldn't say that in any other medical patient scenario.

 

Hmm. Let's see if my dad goes in for a routine procedure such as an angiogram, which while it does have risks, up to and including death, it's a rare risk when performed properly and I find out the staff knowingly did things anyone with a brain should know is not good and ended up butchering the job - causing unnecessary damage and pain to my dad ... No one says, well they didn't kill him, so isn't he lucky?

 

No. Hell no. This is not the dark ages where going to the hospital is not much different than seeing a back alley witch doctor and everyone should just be glad to survive maybe or mostly intact. We do know basic science and reasonable medical practices and we do have basic standard of humane treatment and rights. We do have evidence based outcome predictions and should question why things don't go that way. We have every right to demand that the people providing medical care know it and practice it too. And if not, we need to have in place a system that demands better.

[Bluegoat]

And yet, the patient still has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse consent. If I have cancer and refuse treatment, the doctor can't force me to have it against my will. If I have an infection, they can't force me to take antibiotics, even if they will save my life. We recognize that people have the right to refuse treatment, even life saving treatment, even if the person's reasons are wrong. They still have that right to bodily autonomy. But somehow, when it's a pregnant woman, that is no longer the case. Doctors think they can act "in her best interests" even without consent, and that's total BS. It doesn't matter if the woman's wishes are dumb, or even dangerous, he still doesn't have a right to force care upon her. 

 

He also doesn't necessarily have to agree to remain her doctor though, if he can't in good concience do what the patient wants, especially if it isn't a situation where things are happening fast.  That isn't always a passive thing where the patient is the one refusing something the doctor wants to do, it might involve something like using a drug or therapy the patient wants, that the doctor thinks will be dangerous or ill-advised.

[Bluegoat]

Actually, there is legal precedent that you cannot force treatment on the mother to save the child. Just like you can't force a parent to donate a kidney to save their child with kidney failure. Once the baby is born you can legally force treatment in certain cases, but when it is still in the mother treating the baby means forcing treatment on an adult with the right to refuse, so legally it can't be done. 

 

Of course it IS, all the damn time, every single day, but courts have said it is wrong and illegal. 

 

I'm not sure how straightforward that is, as judges have also enforced things like c-sections on women and such.  It seems like a mixed bag to me.

[Guest]

I was horrified when, about 13 years ago, a friend of mine was describing her delivery and told of how the paramedics had their hands inside her to hold the descending baby inside there until the ambulance arrived at the hospital.

 

Apparently it is not all that unusual.

[ktgrok]

He also doesn't necessarily have to agree to remain her doctor though, if he can't in good concience do what the patient wants, especially if it isn't a situation where things are happening fast.  That isn't always a passive thing where the patient is the one refusing something the doctor wants to do, it might involve something like using a drug or therapy the patient wants, that the doctor thinks will be dangerous or ill-advised.

 

Very true, although few will admit they could just transfer the woman's care to another doctor. For instance, in my area only a few doctors attend VBACs. If you go to one that doesn't, they won't say "I don't do VBAC, but here is a list of doctors that do" as they SHOULD and WOULD if it was something like, a specific cancer treatment. Instead, they say "that's not an option you HAVE to have a c-section." I've met nurses that though VBAC was ILLEGAL! These were nurses in Labor and Delivery!

 

So yes, a doctor, if uncomfortable ethically, asbsolutely should transfer the patient to another doctor. But they don't, not in obstetrics. 

 

There are also rules about patient abandonment...they do have to help transfer care, not just walk out. 

[ktgrok]

I'm not sure how straightforward that is, as judges have also enforced things like c-sections on women and such.  It seems like a mixed bag to me.

 

This is true, it's mostly in certain areas (yay for Florida..sigh). But ACOG ethics, and higher court, have upheld the woman's right to refuse any/all treatment even if it results in the death of the baby. 

[Guest]

Very true, although few will admit they could just transfer the woman's care to another doctor. For instance, in my area only a few doctors attend VBACs. If you go to one that doesn't, they won't say "I don't do VBAC, but here is a list of doctors that do" as they SHOULD and WOULD if it was something like, a specific cancer treatment. Instead, they say "that's not an option you HAVE to have a c-section." I've met nurses that though VBAC was ILLEGAL! These were nurses in Labor and Delivery!

 

So yes, a doctor, if uncomfortable ethically, asbsolutely should transfer the patient to another doctor. But they don't, not in obstetrics.

 

There are also rules about patient abandonment...they do have to help transfer care, not just walk out.

That's insane. Similarly, unless a paramedic can elucidate exactly why a descending baby cannot complete birth they aren't touching me without me suing the pants off them. We have very specific language involving I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR CONTACT and video recording devices handy. If I ever have a precipitous homebirth or car birth we have already gone over, in detail, what we will and won't allow. Even with a prolapse we have a protocol. I just do not trust your average practitioner in a given circumstance to know the best evidenced way to proceed. Video evidence is your friend ;) Edited August 11, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Bluegoat]

Very true, although few will admit they could just transfer the woman's care to another doctor. For instance, in my area only a few doctors attend VBACs. If you go to one that doesn't, they won't say "I don't do VBAC, but here is a list of doctors that do" as they SHOULD and WOULD if it was something like, a specific cancer treatment. Instead, they say "that's not an option you HAVE to have a c-section." I've met nurses that though VBAC was ILLEGAL! These were nurses in Labor and Delivery!

 

So yes, a doctor, if uncomfortable ethically, asbsolutely should transfer the patient to another doctor. But they don't, not in obstetrics. 

 

There are also rules about patient abandonment...they do have to help transfer care, not just walk out. 

 

Yes, I don't know why either.  And as I said above, while I think there is room for doctors to follow their own ethcal understanding of their role, I think it is very odd that maternity care seems to have such a very different view of what that means.

 

Cases that I know of in things like cancer care involve pretty serious issues - people that want to use quack therapies and such.  In maternity care it can be something that is considered a perfectly normal practice in a different hospital.

[gardenmom5]

Very true, although few will admit they could just transfer the woman's care to another doctor. For instance, in my area only a few doctors attend VBACs. If you go to one that doesn't, they won't say "I don't do VBAC, but here is a list of doctors that do" as they SHOULD and WOULD if it was something like, a specific cancer treatment. Instead, they say "that's not an option you HAVE to have a c-section." I've met nurses that though VBAC was ILLEGAL! These were nurses in Labor and Delivery!

 

So yes, a doctor, if uncomfortable ethically, asbsolutely should transfer the patient to another doctor. But they don't, not in obstetrics. 

 

There are also rules about patient abandonment...they do have to help transfer care, not just walk out. 

 

some hospitals insurance wont' cover vbacs - or have such stringent stipulations, few drs are willing.  with dudeling - the hospital REQUIRED the dr to be on campus while I was there in labor. his office down the street was too far., (that meant he had to cancel his clinic)

 

my dr was willing because it was my fourth vbac.   I do admit though, if I hadn't a) liked him, b) the hospital was closer to home, and c) it was my last baby - I would have gone back to the hospital I had my first three kids at.  the L&D nursing director was pretty rigid and that goes down to the nurses in her dept.  (there were some good nurses - and some who had no business in L&D)  I had much more supportive nursing care at my previous hospital.

Edited August 11, 2016 by gardenmom5

[TranquilMind]

Really?  So, they can treat her like Josef Mengele treated pregnant prisoners at Auschwitz and Birkenau and not suffer any consequences?  Permanent damage is hunky dory with you?  I think they were too easy on the hospital.  The only way change will happen is to hit them in the pocketbooks.  Nobody got rich here.  There is a reason why this is a landmark case ... lawyers typically don't take these cases. 

 

Yep!!!

 

 

I do hope there will be some changes.  But, in the South, I doubt it will happen.  A friend of mine became a midwife after the horrible things that happened to her in  a hospital after her last child was born.  The staff out and out lied and nearly caused CPS to take the baby without cause, all because she was an informed patient exercising her rights to informed consent/refusal.   I struggled for years as a childbirth educator trying to convince my students to vote with their pocketbooks.  Don't stay with the nice, charming doctor who plays the "dead baby" card to get his patients to be compliant and accept procedures and treatments that were not evidence-based. 

 

I cam across this article in my facebook feed from ImprovingBirth.org ... what-we-can-learn-from-jehovahs-witnesses-about-obstetrical-violence-and-autonomy-during-pregnancy. 

 

Ah yes, the "dead baby" card.  I can't tell you how many times I heard variations of this from everyone everywhere when I first became pregnant in my late 30's. 

 

[ktgrok]

some hospitals insurance wont' cover vbacs - or have such stringent stipulations, few drs are willing.  with dudeling - the hospital REQUIRED the dr to be on campus while I was there in labor. his office down the street was too far., (that meant he had to cancel his clinic)

 

 

 

Yes, and if that is the case, the doctor should tell the woman that, and refer her to a practice that delivers at another hospital, if she desires a VBAC. 

[happypamama]

I was horrified when, about 13 years ago, a friend of mine was describing her delivery and told of how the paramedics had their hands inside her to hold the descending baby inside there until the ambulance arrived at the hospital.

 

Apparently it is not all that unusual.

I have heard that as well. A baby was coming feet first, so they shoved the baby back up inside so they could perform a c-section. Shudder. I know footling breech is scary, but actually shoving the baby back up inside once he's actually descending just sounds like a recipe for trouble. (Of course, if providers were trained in assisting with breeches, they might not freak out and always require a c-section anyway. Footling breech *can* be a vaginal birth sometimes. One of my midwives was an expert in breech delivery; I wish more people could get that training.)

[Bluegoat]

Lack of training seems to behind so much of this.  The things I have heard from people who are supposed to be experts just make my mouth hang open.

 

 

[Forget-Me-Not]

I hadn't heard of this case, but I'm so glad she won.  
Did anyone ever hear an outcome of the case where the woman was given an episiotomy against her will? 
 

Whether you mean it or not, this is victim blaming. We weren't there and can't imagine what we'd do when blindsided.

 

You really don't know what you'll do until it's happening.  I had a scary experience recently where a guy on a motorcycle got angry at me and followed me for miles through town, riding in my blind spot, and screaming obscenities at me.  I always had this plan in my head that if someone was following me, I'd drive to the police station or the fire department and lay on the horn, and probably call 911 in the process.  Well.  In my anxiety, I missed the turn off to the police department, I didn't know where the fire dept was in this particular city, my hands were too shaky to manage my phone,  and I completely forgot about the blue tooth system that would have allowed me to hit a button on the steering wheel and make a speakerphone call (I was driving my husband's car.  Mine doesn't have the same tech).  It was terrifying and traumatic, and after it was all over, I felt like an idiot because I wasn't able to manage any of the things I always said I would do if such a thing ever happened to me.  

 

We only hear this about giving birth. Like because you're bringing another person into the world, you stop being a person and it doesn't matter what you went through, you're just supposed to be happy with the baby. It's so dehumanizing, revictimizing women who were already dehumanized by their experiences.
 

Yes.  I heard this after my emergency c-section.  At least one person told me to just be grateful that my baby and I were alive and well.  Yes, it saved both our lives, but that didn't change the fact that it was the singular most traumatic, scary thing I'd been through and I had some processing to do.  

 

Yes, and if that is the case, the doctor should tell the woman that, and refer her to a practice that delivers at another hospital, if she desires a VBAC. 

Unfortunately not everyone has this option.  The closest place to me that will do VBAC now is 2.5-3 hours away and the hospital in that case wants you to come stay in the city for the two weeks before your due date.  I had three other kids and wanted my husband home *after* the delivery, especially in case I had to have another c-section.   I just couldn't fathom being that far away from home, trying to entertain three kids in an extended stay suite, that close to my due date.  There are homebirth midwives in my area, and I did look into that, but didn't feel comfortable with it for a number of reasons (not the least of which was that I'd had a spontaneous placental abruption--my reason for the emergency c-section, and we live 30 minutes from a hospital).  

[Ravin]

Ah yes, the "dead baby" card.  I can't tell you how many times I heard variations of this from everyone everywhere when I first became pregnant in my late 30's. 

 

 

I didn't quite get the dead baby card with DD. I did get the "if you refuse care/leave AMA then medicaid won't pay for the birth" card.

 

This when DH was very newly employed at a job with lousy income and no benefits, so there was no way to pay for it out of pocket in sight, even on the distant horizon.

 

F*** you, Dr. Eddy.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Ravin

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is true, it's mostly in certain areas (yay for Florida..sigh). But ACOG ethics, and higher court, have upheld the woman's right to refuse any/all treatment even if it results in the death of the baby.

Doctors/hospitals cannot (or should not anyway) legally/ethically force treatments on anyone.

 

That does not mean they are ever obligated to provide the requested treatment.

 

Which often leads to some less than ideal circumstances under pressure.

[ktgrok]

 

 

Unfortunately not everyone has this option.  The closest place to me that will do VBAC now is 2.5-3 hours away and the hospital in that case wants you to come stay in the city for the two weeks before your due date.  I had three other kids and wanted my husband home *after* the delivery, especially in case I had to have another c-section.   I just couldn't fathom being that far away from home, trying to entertain three kids in an extended stay suite, that close to my due date.  There are homebirth midwives in my area, and I did look into that, but didn't feel comfortable with it for a number of reasons (not the least of which was that I'd had a spontaneous placental abruption--my reason for the emergency c-section, and we live 30 minutes from a hospital).  

 

Of course women may not choose to do that, but the doctor should still be honest about the options. My mom had lung cancer, and the treatment she preferred was only offered in another state. it involved great expense and hassle, but she chose to do that. It would have been unethical to hide that option, or tell her not to do it, rather than let her make up her own mind of how she wanted to handle things. 

 

I had one doctor tell me he doesn't attend VBACs because of his liability insurance, but that ACOG said it was a safe option, he just couldn't attend them. That was honest. Letting women think it is illegal, or that the reason the doctor doesn't do it is that "most" women have a catastrophic uterine rupture (one local doctor says 90 percent of women rupture!), etc in order to scare them into staying with the practice and having the c-section is unethical. Making that decision for the woman, rather than giving her the information and letting her decide, is unethical and paternalistic. 

[ktgrok]

I didn't quite get the dead baby card with DD. I did get the "if you refuse care/leave AMA then medicaid won't pay for the birth" card.

 

This when DH was very newly employed at a job with lousy income and no benefits, so there was no way to pay for it out of pocket in sight, even on the distant horizon.

 

F*** you, Dr. Eddy.

 

that's a really really common tactic (insurance won't pay if you leave/refuse care/go ama). And totally illegal and untrue. I hear it now and then still, but less often than we used to. 

[dirty ethel rackham]

 

F*** you, Dr. Eddy.

 

I couldn't just like this!  I have my own F*** you, Dr. Badowski.  I'm living with pelvic floor issues that are gross and painful and were not fixable with 2 surgeries ... all because of your incompetence.