FREE TAPATALK APP

Dorian Gray · 7th January 2010, 04:20 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mother-...ory?id=9474471

A little of the story:

Quote:

A Massachusetts mother with nine children who had asked a hospital for post-delivery birth control was sterilized instead without her consent, according to a lawsuit against the Springfield hospital and several doctors and nurses.

Tessa Savicki, 35, claimed that doctors at Baystate Medical Center had agreed to insert an intrauterine device, or IUD, that she brought to the operating room, but instead performed a tubal ligation that effectively ended her chances of having more children.

"They've done something. They cannot correct this," she told ABCNews.com. "You think you're safe at the hospital. You're not."

Savicki's attorney, Dr. Max Borten of Waltham, Mass., a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, said his client was devastated when she found out about the tubal ligation shortly after a December 2006 Cesarean section.

Awake with only spinal anesthesia, Saviciki "realized that when she was still on the table," he said.

Savicki's children range in age from 3 to 21 and she is a grandmother of one with another grandchild on the way. She had her first child, a boy, at age 13 after being raped, she told ABC News.

Getting back on her feet after a rough start -- two of her children are on welfare and she is unemployed -- Savicki said she's working toward her GED.

Her three youngest children are with her fiance, Angel Tirado, who she said was hoping for one more baby. Their youngest, Manuel, was recently diagnosed with autism.

"He was talking about trying for another boy," she said.

She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation.

Borten said the chances of Savicki being able to become pregnant again, even if an attempt to reverse the procedure was performed, would be slim.

"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?"

Savicki said she believes the doctors intentionally sterilized her without her consent. "I honestly think they thought I had enough," she said.

Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health, declined to comment on the lawsuit or Savicki's own medical care, citing federal privacy regulations.

But speaking in general terms, it is "absolutely not" normal procedure for a woman to carry her own IUD into the operating room, Albert said.

"It is not our practice for a patient, it is not our practice to insert an IUD into a woman who has just had a C-section," Albert said.

Hospital Confirms No Consent Record Found for Mother's Tubal Ligation

According to the complaint, filed Nov. 24 in Hampden Superior Court, Savicki had agreed prior to a scheduled Cesarean section that her doctors would implant the IUD into her uterus at the end of the procedure. Instead, her tubes were tied after the birth of her ninth child.

It's a procedure, according to the lawsuit, that requires written consent of the women 30 days prior if the patient's medical expenses are covered by the state, as Savicki's were. Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records.

Albert confirmed to ABCNews.com that she had seen a copy of a May 22, 2009, letter from the hospital to Savicki's prior attorney confirming that no consent form for Savicki's tubal ligation was found by the hospital.

-snip-

Okay, my wife belongs to some stupid moronathon called CafeMom. It's about 25% helpful groups with tips and support, and 75% women who wish they were still in high school.

ANYWAY, she believes that they should have sterilized this woman, because anyone who has that many children is a drain on the system. I responded "arguably, isn't even one child a drain on the system? How many children is your cutoff, woman? And do you want doctors going in and performing unasked for surgeries on you?"

I don't care what else this woman may or may not have done, she's not a criminal, and even if she was, there are already laws in place for nearly every crime, and exactly ZERO PERCENT of them have sterilization as the penalty.

So, what do you more reasonable and sane people think about this situation?

MikeMangum · 7th January 2010, 04:37 PM

That's just brutal.

Cynic · 7th January 2010, 04:49 PM

This was definitely unwarranted.

Skeptical Greg · 7th January 2010, 04:53 PM

It was wrong..

She should be compensated by being allowed to adopt as many babies as she wants . No questions asked ..

Sledge · 7th January 2010, 04:59 PM

I don't know if I count as a reasonable and sane person, but I want to hear the hospital's version of events before casting judgement.

Well, apart from the judgement of "nine kids? Bloody hell, lady. What the hell would you even want another one for anyway? It's not like you're going to get anything different."

GreenLines · 7th January 2010, 05:03 PM

The surgery needs to be compensated for, but having more kids... ***** needs a smack up the head. I would say no.

Rasmus · 7th January 2010, 05:03 PM

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!)

I don't think you will find much support here for the notion that the doctors did right and that she ought not to have any more children anyway. (And she was responsible abouot her situation too, given that she volunteered for a non-permanent solution.)

Rasmus · 7th January 2010, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

I don't know if I count as a reasonable and sane person, but I want to hear the hospital's version of events before casting judgement.

I need no more than hearing that they do not have the required paperwork on file.

Sledge · 7th January 2010, 05:06 PM

Sorry, I'd forgotten we'd abolished the idea of judicial hearings instead of just accepting whichever version of events we hear first.

Cynic · 7th January 2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

@ Greg: you're kidding, right? Children are not a commodity that one somehow is entitled to!

That was my initial thought -- that you can't just "award" people human beings. But you know, it makes sense. I mean, the money solves it regardless. She gets money and can opt to use it to to adopt or whatever. I don't think the adoption agencies should feel compelled to allow a child to be placed into an unsafe situation or what they might consider to be a "bad home". But maybe if she decides to, the state should pull out whatever stops might have been been in place otherwise.

Ziggurat · 7th January 2010, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

ANYWAY, she believes that they should have sterilized this woman, because anyone who has that many children is a drain on the system.

Yes, the woman and her children are a drain on the system. But that doesn't mean the system should be empowered to sterilize her without her consent. There are consequences to giving the hospital such a power that would extend far beyond this individual case, so assigning that power based upon the outcome it would produce in this one instance is unjustified.

lionking · 7th January 2010, 05:17 PM

My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous.

If the mother's version is true, the hospital is up for millions. Quite rightly.

Rasmus · 7th January 2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Sorry, I'd forgotten we'd abolished the idea of judicial hearings instead of just accepting whichever version of events we hear first.

I understood that that *was* the hospital's version. Since I am neither judge nor jury, it's good eonugh for me to form an opinion. I'll be happy to revise it if the hospital can produce proof that the paperwork fairy is to blame, though.

Morrigan · 7th January 2010, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous.

You may have missed the fact that this woman is on welfare (this article merely says unemployed but I read another that said she was on "public assistance", and it does state that two of her kids are on welfare), though, so she and her brood are a drain on the system.

Of course, the hospital still made a stupid mistake and should be held accountable... but I have no sympathy for this woman. Have as many children as you want, but don't expect others to pay for them.

ponderingturtle · 7th January 2010, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous.

If the mother's version is true, the hospital is up for millions. Quite rightly.

So unlike the mother in the story here, multiple of your kids are not on wellfare? I wonder how many grandkids she has.

bookitty · 7th January 2010, 06:05 PM

I am strongly pro-choice, therefore I support this woman's decision to have as many children as she would like. If she did not ask to be sterilized, the hospital and doctors deserve the inevitable malpractice suit.

My own feelings about having children when one is on welfare are not important. I can not make that choice for anyone.

lionking · 7th January 2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Morrigan

You may have missed the fact that this woman is on welfare (this article merely says unemployed but I read another that said she was on "public assistance", and it does state that two of her kids are on welfare), though, so she and her brood are a drain on the system.

No I saw that. My point is that the kids are likely (sure, not certain) to get jobs, pay taxes and support the similarly aging US population.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th January 2010, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Cynic

This was definitely unwarranted.

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.

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?

Roma · 7th January 2010, 10:49 PM

It might scream fishy to you but it sounds like plain ol' lack of communication to me.
Did the OBGYN really listen to and explain everything to this woman, or were there ten other patients in the waiting room and not enough coffee for the doctor to stay awake.

I've had a couple of babies and my OBGYNs were terrible communicators, yes I was poor and on welfare too maybe I wasn't important enough to pay any attention to.
When I had my last baby the doctor who showed up was a complete stranger to me.

Andrew Wiggin · 7th January 2010, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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.

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?

Skeptigirl beat me to it. It's not like you can go buy an IUD at the corner IUD store, bring it with you to a hospital, and wave it around till someone put it in. I also doubt that a surgeon would risk his or her career doing a procedure they knew the patient didn't want. There's got to be something else going on here. Plenty of things can go wrong with a c-section that might impair future fertility. The patient can mishear what the doctor said. The patient could have said what they wanted, then the consent got lost. So many different ways for this to go. Of course, in all cases like this, we're left with the patient's story, since the hospital is bound by law and ethics not to reveal details in public, even in their own defense, but the patient is free to say whatever they want, true or not. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the real courts. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is very different than in the court of public opinion.

A

EeneyMinnieMoe · 8th January 2010, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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?

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.

politas · 8th January 2010, 01:14 AM

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.

NYCEMT86 · 8th January 2010, 01:15 AM

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.

funk de fino · 8th January 2010, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

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.

Voice of reason. If only more were like this.

Ian Osborne · 8th January 2010, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

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.

Yes, quite. Malpractice or money-grubbing? It could go either way.

ponderingturtle · 8th January 2010, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

Yes, quite. Malpractice or money-grubbing? It could go either way.

Why are they mutually exclusive?

Skeptical Greg · 8th January 2010, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

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!)

......

luchog · 8th January 2010, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

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.

That was precisely my first thought.

The Central Scrutinizer · 8th January 2010, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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.

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.

drkitten · 8th January 2010, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

So, what do you more reasonable and sane people think about this situation?

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.

truethat · 8th January 2010, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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.

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?

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.

Pinkymcfatfat · 8th January 2010, 07:47 AM

35 and a grandma? I'm 36 and don't have ANY grandkids...I must be doing something wrong.

The Central Scrutinizer · 8th January 2010, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Pinkymcfatfat

35 and a grandma? I'm 36 and don't have ANY grandkids...I must be doing something wrong.

I'm 50 and don't have ANY kids...I must be doing something right.

Chaos · 8th January 2010, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86

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.

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

Quote:

"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?"

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

Hospital intentionally sterilizes member of unsavory population group - no sir, YOU need to prove that.

bignickel · 8th January 2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records.

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.

The Fallen Serpent · 8th January 2010, 08:13 AM

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.

drkitten · 8th January 2010, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

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.

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....

The Fallen Serpent · 8th January 2010, 08:49 AM

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.

Beerina · 8th January 2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation.

WTF!

She doesn't have enough cash to adopt, but she wants to keep squeezin' 'em out?

Rasmus · 8th January 2010, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

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".

7th January 2010, 04:20 PM	#1
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,210	Mother of Nine Sues Massachusetts Hospital After Unauthorized Sterilization http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mother-...ory?id=9474471 A little of the story: Quote: A Massachusetts mother with nine children who had asked a hospital for post-delivery birth control was sterilized instead without her consent, according to a lawsuit against the Springfield hospital and several doctors and nurses. Tessa Savicki, 35, claimed that doctors at Baystate Medical Center had agreed to insert an intrauterine device, or IUD, that she brought to the operating room, but instead performed a tubal ligation that effectively ended her chances of having more children. "They've done something. They cannot correct this," she told ABCNews.com. "You think you're safe at the hospital. You're not." Savicki's attorney, Dr. Max Borten of Waltham, Mass., a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, said his client was devastated when she found out about the tubal ligation shortly after a December 2006 Cesarean section. Awake with only spinal anesthesia, Saviciki "realized that when she was still on the table," he said. Savicki's children range in age from 3 to 21 and she is a grandmother of one with another grandchild on the way. She had her first child, a boy, at age 13 after being raped, she told ABC News. Getting back on her feet after a rough start -- two of her children are on welfare and she is unemployed -- Savicki said she's working toward her GED. Her three youngest children are with her fiance, Angel Tirado, who she said was hoping for one more baby. Their youngest, Manuel, was recently diagnosed with autism. "He was talking about trying for another boy," she said. She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation. Borten said the chances of Savicki being able to become pregnant again, even if an attempt to reverse the procedure was performed, would be slim. "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?" Savicki said she believes the doctors intentionally sterilized her without her consent. "I honestly think they thought I had enough," she said. Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health, declined to comment on the lawsuit or Savicki's own medical care, citing federal privacy regulations. But speaking in general terms, it is "absolutely not" normal procedure for a woman to carry her own IUD into the operating room, Albert said. "It is not our practice for a patient, it is not our practice to insert an IUD into a woman who has just had a C-section," Albert said. Hospital Confirms No Consent Record Found for Mother's Tubal Ligation According to the complaint, filed Nov. 24 in Hampden Superior Court, Savicki had agreed prior to a scheduled Cesarean section that her doctors would implant the IUD into her uterus at the end of the procedure. Instead, her tubes were tied after the birth of her ninth child. It's a procedure, according to the lawsuit, that requires written consent of the women 30 days prior if the patient's medical expenses are covered by the state, as Savicki's were. Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records. Albert confirmed to ABCNews.com that she had seen a copy of a May 22, 2009, letter from the hospital to Savicki's prior attorney confirming that no consent form for Savicki's tubal ligation was found by the hospital. -snip- Okay, my wife belongs to some stupid moronathon called CafeMom. It's about 25% helpful groups with tips and support, and 75% women who wish they were still in high school. ANYWAY, she believes that they should have sterilized this woman, because anyone who has that many children is a drain on the system. I responded "arguably, isn't even one child a drain on the system? How many children is your cutoff, woman? And do you want doctors going in and performing unasked for surgeries on you?" I don't care what else this woman may or may not have done, she's not a criminal, and even if she was, there are already laws in place for nearly every crime, and exactly ZERO PERCENT of them have sterilization as the penalty. So, what do you more reasonable and sane people think about this situation?
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

7th January 2010, 04:49 PM	#3
Cynic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,331	This was definitely unwarranted.
	__________________ The slackjaw gaze of true profanity feels more like surrender than defeat -- if culture is the curse of the thinking class. -- Neil Peart

7th January 2010, 04:53 PM	#4
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	It was wrong.. She should be compensated by being allowed to adopt as many babies as she wants . No questions asked ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

7th January 2010, 04:59 PM	#5
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	I don't know if I count as a reasonable and sane person, but I want to hear the hospital's version of events before casting judgement. Well, apart from the judgement of "nine kids? Bloody hell, lady. What the hell would you even want another one for anyway? It's not like you're going to get anything different."
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th January 2010, 05:03 PM	#6
GreenLines Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 370	The surgery needs to be compensated for, but having more kids... ***** needs a smack up the head. I would say no.
	__________________ Smikes, ja.

7th January 2010, 04:37 PM	#2
MikeMangum Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,725	That's just brutal.

7th January 2010, 05:03 PM	#7
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	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!) I don't think you will find much support here for the notion that the doctors did right and that she ought not to have any more children anyway. (And she was responsible abouot her situation too, given that she volunteered for a non-permanent solution.)
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

7th January 2010, 05:05 PM	#8
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by Sledge I don't know if I count as a reasonable and sane person, but I want to hear the hospital's version of events before casting judgement. I need no more than hearing that they do not have the required paperwork on file.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

7th January 2010, 05:06 PM	#9
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Sorry, I'd forgotten we'd abolished the idea of judicial hearings instead of just accepting whichever version of events we hear first.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th January 2010, 05:13 PM	#10
Cynic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by Rasmus @ Greg: you're kidding, right? Children are not a commodity that one somehow is entitled to! That was my initial thought -- that you can't just "award" people human beings. But you know, it makes sense. I mean, the money solves it regardless. She gets money and can opt to use it to to adopt or whatever. I don't think the adoption agencies should feel compelled to allow a child to be placed into an unsafe situation or what they might consider to be a "bad home". But maybe if she decides to, the state should pull out whatever stops might have been been in place otherwise.
	__________________ The slackjaw gaze of true profanity feels more like surrender than defeat -- if culture is the curse of the thinking class. -- Neil Peart

7th January 2010, 05:17 PM	#11
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Dorian Gray ANYWAY, she believes that they should have sterilized this woman, because anyone who has that many children is a drain on the system. Yes, the woman and her children are a drain on the system. But that doesn't mean the system should be empowered to sterilize her without her consent. There are consequences to giving the hospital such a power that would extend far beyond this individual case, so assigning that power based upon the outcome it would produce in this one instance is unjustified.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

7th January 2010, 05:17 PM	#12
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,983	My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous. If the mother's version is true, the hospital is up for millions. Quite rightly.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

7th January 2010, 05:23 PM	#13
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by Sledge Sorry, I'd forgotten we'd abolished the idea of judicial hearings instead of just accepting whichever version of events we hear first. I understood that that was the hospital's version. Since I am neither judge nor jury, it's good eonugh for me to form an opinion. I'll be happy to revise it if the hospital can produce proof that the paperwork fairy is to blame, though.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

7th January 2010, 05:34 PM	#14
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,000	Originally Posted by lionking My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous. You may have missed the fact that this woman is on welfare (this article merely says unemployed but I read another that said she was on "public assistance", and it does state that two of her kids are on welfare), though, so she and her brood are a drain on the system. Of course, the hospital still made a stupid mistake and should be held accountable... but I have no sympathy for this woman. Have as many children as you want, but don't expect others to pay for them.
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,000

7th January 2010, 05:44 PM	#15
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by lionking My wife and I have seven children, together with three miscarriages. My wife would happily had a dozen, but we didn't have our first until she was 30. Six of our children are working, paying taxes and helping to balance the aging Australian population. To say children are a drain on the system is ludricrous. If the mother's version is true, the hospital is up for millions. Quite rightly. So unlike the mother in the story here, multiple of your kids are not on wellfare? I wonder how many grandkids she has.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th January 2010, 06:05 PM	#16
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	I am strongly pro-choice, therefore I support this woman's decision to have as many children as she would like. If she did not ask to be sterilized, the hospital and doctors deserve the inevitable malpractice suit. My own feelings about having children when one is on welfare are not important. I can not make that choice for anyone.

7th January 2010, 06:38 PM	#17
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,983	Originally Posted by Morrigan You may have missed the fact that this woman is on welfare (this article merely says unemployed but I read another that said she was on "public assistance", and it does state that two of her kids are on welfare), though, so she and her brood are a drain on the system. No I saw that. My point is that the kids are likely (sure, not certain) to get jobs, pay taxes and support the similarly aging US population.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

7th January 2010, 06:41 PM	#18
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Cynic This was definitely unwarranted. 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. 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?
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 7th January 2010 at 06:46 PM.*

7th January 2010, 10:49 PM	#19
Roma Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 2,091	It might scream fishy to you but it sounds like plain ol' lack of communication to me. Did the OBGYN really listen to and explain everything to this woman, or were there ten other patients in the waiting room and not enough coffee for the doctor to stay awake. I've had a couple of babies and my OBGYNs were terrible communicators, yes I was poor and on welfare too maybe I wasn't important enough to pay any attention to. When I had my last baby the doctor who showed up was a complete stranger to me.
	__________________ I only know what I want to know.

7th January 2010, 11:49 PM	#20
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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. 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? Skeptigirl beat me to it. It's not like you can go buy an IUD at the corner IUD store, bring it with you to a hospital, and wave it around till someone put it in. I also doubt that a surgeon would risk his or her career doing a procedure they knew the patient didn't want. There's got to be something else going on here. Plenty of things can go wrong with a c-section that might impair future fertility. The patient can mishear what the doctor said. The patient could have said what they wanted, then the consent got lost. So many different ways for this to go. Of course, in all cases like this, we're left with the patient's story, since the hospital is bound by law and ethics not to reveal details in public, even in their own defense, but the patient is free to say whatever they want, true or not. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the real courts. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is very different than in the court of public opinion. A
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

8th January 2010, 12:02 AM	#21
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,660	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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? 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.
	__________________ Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne ! StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com

8th January 2010, 01:14 AM	#22
politas Pirate King Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 1,081	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.
	__________________ Myk Rational Capital Podcast Last edited by politas; 8th January 2010 at 01:51 AM.

8th January 2010, 01:15 AM	#23
NYCEMT86 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Slums of Brooklyn Posts: 1,058	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.
	__________________ I bringth the Amber lamps "The most beautiful four words in the common language is: I told you so." - Vidal

8th January 2010, 01:41 AM	#24
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 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. Voice of reason. If only more were like this.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

8th January 2010, 01:54 AM	#25
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,402	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 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. Yes, quite. Malpractice or money-grubbing? It could go either way.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

8th January 2010, 06:36 AM	#26
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne Yes, quite. Malpractice or money-grubbing? It could go either way. Why are they mutually exclusive?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

8th January 2010, 06:42 AM	#27
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	Originally Posted by Rasmus 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!) ......
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th January 2010, 06:49 AM	#28
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,997	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 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. That was precisely my first thought.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

8th January 2010, 07:01 AM	#29
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,572	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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. 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.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

8th January 2010, 07:30 AM	#30
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Dorian Gray So, what do you more reasonable and sane people think about this situation? 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.

8th January 2010, 07:33 AM	#31
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by skeptigirl 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. 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? 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.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

8th January 2010, 07:47 AM	#32
Pinkymcfatfat ban-hammered Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 586	35 and a grandma? I'm 36 and don't have ANY grandkids...I must be doing something wrong.

8th January 2010, 07:53 AM	#33
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,572	Originally Posted by Pinkymcfatfat 35 and a grandma? I'm 36 and don't have ANY grandkids...I must be doing something wrong. I'm 50 and don't have ANY kids...I must be doing something right.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

8th January 2010, 07:54 AM	#34
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,811	Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 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. At the very least, I would like to see evidence for this allegation: Quote: "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?" Hospital screws up mightily - yeah, it looks that way. Hospital intentionally sterilizes member of unsavory population group - no sir, YOU need to prove that.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

8th January 2010, 08:01 AM	#35
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,729	Quote: Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records. 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.
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone