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

deepimpact2 · #1 01-03-2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by als463

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.

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.

als463 · #2 01-03-2010, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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...

Jill1228 · #3 01-03-2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by als463

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...

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

als463 · #4 01-04-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill1228

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.

deepimpact2 · #5 01-04-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by als463

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...

If you give these doctors a pat on the back, that will only make things get out of hand. Then you may start having doctors sterilize ANYONE that THEY feel is abusing the system, without knowing anything about that person. I don't understand why any intelligent human being would support that kind of thing.

It is attitudes like yours that scare me when it comes to jury trials. Too often jurors get hung up on irrelevant issues and humanistic things and disregard the actual law. The sad part is that if the lawsuit goes to trial and gets to a jury, the jury will probably do the very same thing you are doing.

People need to understand that unsympathetic plaintiffs deserve their day in court as well if they have legitimate legal issues.

Kevin · #6 01-04-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

People need to understand that unsympathetic plaintiffs deserve their day in court as well if they have legitimate legal issues.

Still though, the jury could find that a battery was committed, but only award nominal damages. That sort of thing [juries treating unsympathetic plaintiffs badly] is at the heart of our legal system. Despite being right on the law, it's still important to prove the moral righteousness of this case, and this lawyer might have a rough go of it.

deepimpact2 · #7 01-04-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Still though, the jury could find that a battery was committed, but only award nominal damages. That sort of thing [juries treating unsympathetic plaintiffs badly] is at the heart of our legal system. Despite being right on the law, it's still important to prove the moral righteousness of this case, and this lawyer might have a rough go of it.

At least if they find a battery was committed, that won't result in free reign for doctors to do this kind of thing. Nominal damages are better than nothing. Proves a point.

Kevin · #8 01-04-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

At least if they find a battery was committed, that won't result in free reign for doctors to do this kind of thing. Nominal damages are better than nothing. Proves a point.

Proves a point to the plaintiff's lawyer to not take cases like that again...

deepimpact2 · #9 01-04-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Proves a point to the plaintiff's lawyer to not take cases like that again...

I don't know if I agree with that. What is the difference between this case and a case involving someone who goes in for a face lift and gets a breast reduction on her 44H's instead? I mean you could make the argument that she needed the reduction anyway for health reasons, but that's not what she asked for. The focus should really be on the fact that it appears that the procedure she requested was NOT the procedure that was performed.

If it later turns out that she asked for the ligation (which I doubt) then that would be a different story. But somehow I think if that was really the case, gag order or not, that information would have been leaked by now.

ASUADPi · #10 01-03-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

deepimpact2 · #11 01-04-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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.

No, we don't know what went down, but it isn't that uncommon to have doctors perform the wrong procedure on patients. You are implying that she may have done something herself to cause it to happen, but are you thinking that because you are judging her on having 9 kids or is that what you really think may have happened? If they cannot produce a consent form that she signed for the tubal ligation that fell within the guidelines for such procedures, then yes, they were wrong.