Patient rights are important. In a person's most vulnerable moments, they have to mean something.
The case Meador v. Stahler and Gheridian drives this home. Here is an excerpt about the case:
"The $1.5 million award to a Massachusetts woman and her family in Meador v. Stahler and Gheridian3 made news as a rare instance of a malpractice judgment based on an allegedly unwanted and unnecessary cesarean section rather than a failure to perform such an operation. The plaintiff, Mary Meador, did not claim that the procedure was negligently performed or that the rare and disabling physical complications that resulted from it (which left her largely bedridden and unable to work or meet her family responsibilities for several years) were foreseeable. Instead, she claimed that the defendant obstetricians had misrepresented the risks of the alternative procedure (vaginal birth after prior cesarean) and ignored her persistent pleas for this alternative. Moreover, she alleged, they compelled her passive assent to the surgery in an emotionally coercive manner while she was progressing normally in labor, despite their having previously agreed to such a trial of labor. -
Because the consequences of the cesarean were unforeseeable, and because Meador had signed a consent form for the surgery (to be used in case of emergency), this case did not meet the technical requirements specified under Massachusetts law4 for an action based on informed consent. Instead, the case was brought on the theory that the physicians' failure to obtain the patient's informed consent constituted substandard, negligent medical care. The forensic psychiatrist's expert testimony emphasized that the pro forma signing of a consent form did not constitute true informed consent, especially in light of the physicians' alleged disregard of the patient's expressed wishes and their inaccurate representation of the risks and benefits of the approach she preferred.
- The psychiatrist also explained to the jury how Meador's life history left her vulnerable to experiencing the denial of informed consent as a highly traumatic event."
My rights to informed consent were definitely violated. I was not consulted before I was pitted. Pitocin was administered to me at 5 a.m. while I was semi-conscious, without prior discussion. Is that informed consent? When I asked for more time to labor, there was no discussion about pros and cons. Instead I was told I had to have the c-section because I was "already scheduled." Is that informed consent? While I was strapped on the O.R. table, with an epidural and oxygen mask, Dr. Holland shouted at me to give her verbal consent or to "walk out of the hospital" because she "didn't want to be charged with assault." Is that informed consent?
The case Meador v. Stahler and Gheridian drives this home. Here is an excerpt about the case:
"The $1.5 million award to a Massachusetts woman and her family in Meador v. Stahler and Gheridian3 made news as a rare instance of a malpractice judgment based on an allegedly unwanted and unnecessary cesarean section rather than a failure to perform such an operation. The plaintiff, Mary Meador, did not claim that the procedure was negligently performed or that the rare and disabling physical complications that resulted from it (which left her largely bedridden and unable to work or meet her family responsibilities for several years) were foreseeable. Instead, she claimed that the defendant obstetricians had misrepresented the risks of the alternative procedure (vaginal birth after prior cesarean) and ignored her persistent pleas for this alternative. Moreover, she alleged, they compelled her passive assent to the surgery in an emotionally coercive manner while she was progressing normally in labor, despite their having previously agreed to such a trial of labor. -
Because the consequences of the cesarean were unforeseeable, and because Meador had signed a consent form for the surgery (to be used in case of emergency), this case did not meet the technical requirements specified under Massachusetts law4 for an action based on informed consent. Instead, the case was brought on the theory that the physicians' failure to obtain the patient's informed consent constituted substandard, negligent medical care. The forensic psychiatrist's expert testimony emphasized that the pro forma signing of a consent form did not constitute true informed consent, especially in light of the physicians' alleged disregard of the patient's expressed wishes and their inaccurate representation of the risks and benefits of the approach she preferred.
- The psychiatrist also explained to the jury how Meador's life history left her vulnerable to experiencing the denial of informed consent as a highly traumatic event."
My rights to informed consent were definitely violated. I was not consulted before I was pitted. Pitocin was administered to me at 5 a.m. while I was semi-conscious, without prior discussion. Is that informed consent? When I asked for more time to labor, there was no discussion about pros and cons. Instead I was told I had to have the c-section because I was "already scheduled." Is that informed consent? While I was strapped on the O.R. table, with an epidural and oxygen mask, Dr. Holland shouted at me to give her verbal consent or to "walk out of the hospital" because she "didn't want to be charged with assault." Is that informed consent?
posted by 4Moms2B at 8:37 PM
1 Comments:
Your rights were deffinetly violated. I would turn around and sue. No one should have to be treated this way.
Post a Comment
<< Home