Woman claims "I was sterlized against my will!" after having 9 children...
 

There are many facts to this case to go over and to be upset about.

Make sure you also read the entire corresponding link.

link



A 35-year-old mother of nine is suing a Springfield hospital, three doctors and two nurses, claiming they permanently sterilized her against her will, violating her reproductive rights, according to a lawsuit filed in Superior Court.

Tessa Savicki, who has nine children aged 3 to 21, claims doctors were supposed to implant an intrauterine device, which is a type of reversible birth control, after she delivered a son, Manuel Flores, on Dec. 19, 2006, at Baystate Medical Center.

Instead, she said, a type of permanent sterilization known as a tubal ligation was performed, leaving her mentally distraught and incapable of bearing more children.

“There was no medical reason for them to do this,” Savicki told the Herald. “That’s my choice. This is my body. I wanted the IUD so later if I felt I wanted more children, I could have more.”

Savicki said she did not sign a written consent for a tubal ligation, which under federal and state regulations is required at least 30 days in advance for all MassHealth patients who want a permanent sterilization procedure.

Savicki’s attorney, Max Borten of Waltham, alleges that his client’s human and constitutional rights were violated and that the hospital had a “total breakdown of protocols.”

“There were violations at many, many levels,” said Borten, a former obstetrician and gynecologist who practiced as a physician for more than 30 years in Massachusetts.

Medical records sought

Borten provided the Herald with a Baystate Medical Center letter on Savicki’s case, signed on May 22, 2009, by an employee of the hospital’s Health Information Management System department. It reads: “We regret to tell you that in spite of carefully and thoroughly searching, we have been unable to locate the following medical records: ‘Tubal consent form for December 2006.’ ”

The signed letter was sent by Baystate to one of Savicki’s previous attorneys, Borten said.

Baystate spokeswoman Jane Albert confirmed that the document was signed and sent by an employee in the Health Information Management System department. She declined to comment on it.

That's crazy.

Just some more tidbits:
Oh! And she also had her first kid at 13 and dropped out of school.

I get the whole 'it's my body' thing... I totally get that... but what I don't get is why people don't understand just because they can have kids doesn't mean they should.

It's so frustrating that they are draining the system and aren't doing anything to contribute to society. She's just like that Octomom lady. Ugh.

I think it was wrong. But why does she keep having kids? Can she afford the ones she has, or is she relying on us (the tax payer) to feed them? If she is, then I have a slightly different opinion about it.

That's it, I'm done. I missed page two. She has nine kids from different guys and she's on government assistance, too. That's crap. Take her off of the system, tell her she's on her on, and I agree 100% with the Drs. and nurses. I hate people like that. My God, that makes me so mad.

IUDs are gross. Yuuuuuuck.

But there's another part of me that's not in favor of it, because it could lead to genocide and who's to say what's too many childeren, because there's a lot of people who have money with only one child and they're not taking care of him/her. And I also wouldn't want genetic profiling to start from this kind of thing. So, I guess I'm kind of in between.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/non-hodg...-pdq-treatment

If she has NHL, should she even be getting pregnant?

I really feel like we're missing part of this story. Obviously, we're hearing her and her lawyer's perspective- but I'd be interested to hear what the doctor's and their lawyers had to say in response.

If this was truly done with no precedent for the need (which I have a hard time believing), then she deserves to win. It's her decision, and her body. Unfortunately, it's our tax dollars- but we have no way that we can stop her legally.

Sounds like Octomom huh?

I agree we haven't heard what he doctors/hospital's lawyers have to say.

I seriously wish we could cut people off after a certain amount of time on public assistance. It's so ridiculous how so many people abuse the system.

Like people who come to get food from a food bank wearing full-length furs, gold chains, and driving Escalades?

TRUE STORY.

Sorry, if she takes one penny of public money she is NOT taking care of her children. Public assistance was not meant to be something that you stay on forever but rather a short term "assist". Speaks volumes that her mother has custody of three of her children.

This woman is just short of disgusting for me. That being said, the doctors should not have sterilized her without her consent. If that's what happened.

It's a doctor's job to fully inform patients of all risks and effects of procedures, it is not their job to make major health decisions for us.

Why would a hospital surgically implant something that they were not supplying the patient themselves?

I would imagine that if something happened, the woman would have no legal recourse against the hospital, since she brought it in herself.

Which, again, makes no sense.

I didn't see that part. WTF??? Not just the bringing it in like she's bringing her own food to the movie, but I wouldn't think you'd want to put an IUD in immediately after delivery. I know she had a C section, but still, shouldn't your uterus have some time to get back to normal?

Actually, after delivery is an ideal time to have an IUD inserted, since the cervix is flexible and open, so there is little need for extra dilation. IUD's are most easily inserted in women who have had a child, for the same reasons. Although they can be inserted in women who have not yet had a child, it can just be more painful/difficult...in these instances, it's best done during/right after the menstrual cycle.

;) Ask me how I know. hehehe, I love the NHS.

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

It's 3 years.

Also, can somebody explain what so called constitutional right was violated?

I was told you had to wait until your 6-week check up, since during that time, your uterus is expelling all the extra stuff left over from the pregnancy?

Dunno about that end of it, I had mine as a non-baby haver. I kind of blocked that part of the lecture out. The guidelines are/were different in Britain as well. It's pretty difficult for a woman my age without children to get an IUD in the states...most OB/GYNs are pretty hesitant about it. Some of my friends have had their drs refuse to do it, and had to go to PP to get it done. My own OB/GYN in the states stood their questioning me on it for a good half hour. What part of "I don't want to take pills and I don't want children" isn't clear?

Her RIGHT to have more kids than she can support!

(hehehehe)

Not really ODD per se. Sometimes there are other factors going on such as attempts at settlement that are taking place before the actual suit is filed. I'm not saying that is what happened here though.

I wonder how the SOL and SOR are affected by waiting so long.

So did the doctors do it on purpose or was it negligence?

If it is the former, then yeah, they deliberately violated her rights.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too but couldn't think of a way to put it that wouldn't freak the men out. :) I'd think they'd want you to have at least one period before putting it in.

Again, YUCK!!!!!! at the whole concept.

for people who decide to breastfeed, it can be over a year before you have your first period after childbirth...

Here's my thing. The article states this...

"Savicki has nine children from several men, is unemployed and relies on public assistance for two of the four children who live with her. She receives supplemental security income, or SSI, for a disability, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, she said. Her mother has custody of three of her children. Two of her children are no longer minors."

But then she goes on to state this...

"“I take care of my kids. I love my kids. I was not ready to make that kind of decision,” she said of the permanent sterilization."

Pardon me while I scratch my head.

How do you take care of your kids when you are unemployed, receiving social security, government assistance and mom has custody of 3 of them?:confused:

This woman is a frickin' moron. She is just as bad as octomom! :mad:

She also seems quite sue happy, since she sued once before she got pregnant (claimed that she was sold expired spermicide :rolleyes:)

I don't feel sorry for her whatsoever.

I also feel that since the doctors can't tell "their side" of the story, that we aren't getting the "whole" story. For all we know she could have signed something agreeing to a tubal ligation and is now pissed because she can't have baby number 10 (that too would end up on government assistance).

This is bullshit. So what are we doing now, telling people how many kids they can have? Ancient Chinese Secret horse shit.

ASUADPi hit the nail on the head. She is on public assistance, but then she claims she is "taking care of her kids." I hate when people say that. Why do people say, "My kids are always dressed in name brand clothes, I take care of my kids." I hear people talk all the time about how they provide for their children because their kids are the best-dressed or have the nicest toys. Taking care of your kids does not mean sitting them in front of a television set, eating government cheese and sipping on Mountain Dew.

This b**** needs to get a job and get a clue. Personally, I think we should sterilize anyone who LIVES on the system for a certain period of time. If you keep having children and you constantly get them taken away from you or you are living on the sytem their entire lives, you need to be sterilized. As a former Caseworker, I can say that if you lose your parental rights to any of your children, you should be sterilized. I'm gonna' get flamed for this, but in times like this, I say screw constitutional rights. Some people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Wrong! It is NOT just her body. It is the lives of her children that she brought into the world with little stability.

Wow, this story really got me mad!:mad:

That is not the least bit relevant to this story. I don't think people should have babies and not take care of them, but this isn't really about that. Allegedly this woman elected to have one procedure and they performed a different one. Whether you like her lifestyle or not, if this is true, then it is basic medical malpractice and you can't have people deciding the merit of her case based on whether they agree with her having so many kids.

*Claps*

Again I ask, what constitutional rights have been violated? Yes I do do agree human rights have been violated, but what does this mess have to do with the Constitution?

How is talking about her abusing the system not relevant to thread? Other people said the same thing. It might be about that. It may not have been right for them to perform this surgery/ operation without her consent, but maybe instead of crying that she wasn't treated properly, we should give these Doctors a pat on the back.

P.S. Psi U MC Vito, I heart you...

Where does it say that she (or her lawyer) said that they violated her constitutional rights? All I'm seeing is that she's saying they violated her reproductive rights, which they did.

Might be relative to the thread, is not relative to the case. I'm not one for handing out pats on the back for medical malpractice, because that is (allegedly) what happened.

Right here.

Missed that. The GC legal eagles would have to draw the connection there.

LOL...Did you guys check out the comments section? You have people on there complaining about it, yet they clearly didn't read through it. I get it that the story upsets people, but at least read through it before you comment on it. One guy wrote something about how if she is living on the system or on disability, then she should be sterilized. I agree that she should be sterilized, but it clearly states in the story that she is living off the system and on disability. People are making comments about the story saying, "Well if this...then that," without actually seeing what they are talking about was actually addressed. I love it!:rolleyes:

THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS.

Wow, I'm breaking all my GC rules tonight - 1. Using "THIS" is annoying., 2. Don't talk about "issues" on GC, stick to Greek Life.

But the reality is we really don't know what went down. We are only get "her" side of the story as the hospital, doctors and nurses can't comment due to pending litigation (which leads me to believe that the hospital is fighting her claim, if that is the case I'm sure they have documentation that supports their claim).

The burden of proof is on her. She has to prove that she did not sign something that said yes to sterilization. For all we know, she could have and now she pissed about it. That is why they say to read before you sign. For all we know the hospital could have screwed up and gave her the wrong consent form to sign, but she did sign it. If she didn't read the document before signing, I'm sorry she has no one to blame but herself.

Not only pending litigation prevents them from talking, but so do HIPAA laws.

I freaking heart both of you! If she can't feed and take care of the kids she has now, she shouldn't be breeding

And as ASUADPi said, the burden of proof is on her

No...Jill, I freakin' heart YOU! Although it sucks that she may not have consented, she should not be able to breed anymore.

It is nice to find other people that have the same views as me. I also appreciate opposing views.