Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:465]

sangha said:

Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

Click to expand...

Maenad said:

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Click to expand...

RogueWarrior said:

It is about possible medical negligence. You don't send an 18 week pregnant woman home with pain killers after their water breaks. This is always a very bad thing especially for a fetus. Almost guaranteed to lead to a miscarriage. If the catholic hospital really cares about fetuses like they say, it stands to reason that they would do everything possible to save the fetus. And yet they sent her home which seems to me to be a very strange way to try to save a miscarrying fetus. This points to a conclusion that the hospital and staff knew the fetus was dead or doomed. However they should have known it was alive at this point, if they had performed an ultrasound.

One might say that the first time they sent her home with pain medication, they were hoping the problem takes care of itself. I guess it was presumed that the fetus would be delivered at home, the mother notices the baby is breathing and rushes back to the hospital where it will later die. But that didn't happen.

The pregnant woman goes back to the hospital a second time, in severe pain. The hospital has already determined, as proved by their prior actions, that the fetus is doomed and now the pregnant woman is in severe pain which obviously means that the miscarriage is normal, right? There isn't any bleeding or other signs of complications, is there? Because if there were such signs, one would think that the possibility of a fatal hemorrhage is now considerably greater. And of course the proper action in this case is to send the pregnant woman home with more pain meds? Is that the extent of their care: take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning?

It is alleged the pain reaches a level 10 out of 10 and so the pregnant woman returns to the hospital for third time. At this point, as a layman, some very loud alarm bells would be going off in my head. And yet they were in the process of sending her home for a freaking third time when she delivers a breach baby. I will let you think about that for a second.

A freaking breach baby. Severe level 10 pain. Did anyone do an ultrasound to see the baby FFS, especially at the 3rd visit? If someone had done an ultrasound and somehow didn't notice the miscarrying baby was breach, that is negligence. If an ultrasound was not done even when all the symptoms point towards dangerous complications, that is negligence. If they knew about the breach and still sent or tried to send her home, that is possibly gross negligence. Sending a person home with level 10 pain is negligence.

So yes this lawsuit is about negligence.

Click to expand...

Maenad said:

Is it medical negligence by a Catholic CARDINAL?

Click to expand...

That is what the case turns on. How would an abortion have saved the life of a woman who didn't die?

Click to expand...

This debacle was definitely inconvenient. And medical authorities will differ on whether or not her treatment was appropriate and timely. But think about this a minute. A woman who did not die is suing CLERGY for medical negligence because they didn't do a procedure TO SAVE THE LIFE SHE DID NOT LOSE. What's wrong with this picture? I've seen far worse debacles than this. No one sued a clergyman and no one got money for it. This is a 'cause' trumped up by the ACLU. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else

Click to expand...

Maenad said:

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.

Click to expand...

mak2 said:

Does anyone know if she had insurance? I have seen doctors on call send someone home because the patient did not have insurance and by the time they came back another team would be on call and would have to take the patient.

Click to expand...

Maenad said:

If she was on Medicaid she had insurance. But according to EMTALA, insurance cannot be a consideration. If a person presents to a hospital ER in labor or with an emergent condition, the hospital is required by federal law to evaluate and treat them. If the condition is not labor or not emergent, the hospital is only required to evaluate the person. Whether something is labor or is emergent is the doctor's call.

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Click to expand...

sangha said:

According to your link, the woman was suffering from a "medical emergency condition" and so the law requires the hospital to "informs the individual (or a person acting on the individual’s behalf) of the risks and benefits to the individual of such examination and treatment"

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Please provide that statute. Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

mak2 said:

Does anyone know if she had insurance? I have seen doctors on call send someone home because the patient did not have insurance and by the time they came back another team would be on call and would have to take the patient.

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

No hospital is required to treat a person unless it's an emergency. So the initial visit might be dismissed on not reaching that level yet, while the follow upo was after the point of escalation

Click to expand...

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Under EMTALA, the woman's condition was an emergency medical condition

Social Security Act §1867

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

I suggest you think about context before replying

Click to expand...

Maenad said:

If she was on Medicaid she had insurance. But according to EMTALA, insurance cannot be a consideration. If a person presents to a hospital ER in labor or with an emergent condition, the hospital is required by federal law to evaluate and treat them. If the condition is not labor or not emergent, the hospital is only required to evaluate the person. Whether something is labor or is emergent is the doctor's call.

Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Click to expand...

sangha said:

And I suggest you present an argument that explains how my post did not directly refute your post

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

because it had nothing to do with the person in the OP. It was explaining why a hospital might turn down a patient w/o insurance, but later admit them for ER care.

But that was rather obvious from the "context"...

Click to expand...

sangha said:

So you were *not* discussing the woman who is suing, and you think I'm the one who is ignoring context? :lamo

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

uhh, I was responding to a point another poster raised. So yes, you did and continue to ignore context

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Why can't you read the post you responded to? It's right there (ie EMTALA)

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Perhaps you are referring to another poster but Quoted me by mistake.

I don't think it was ok not to inform the patient what was happening.
I understand fully the infections she had could have been life threatening.

And I am the one that gave the example of a Jehovah's Witness owned hospital and blood transfusions.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Oh, ok. On my phone, I'll look it up when I get home.

Click to expand...

sedan said:

While you're at it, look up the de Tocqueville quote in your signature.

A generous reader might say it's an extremely poor translation, but really it is so distorted that it should rightly be called an outright falsehood.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikiquote

Click to expand...

Often misquoted as: Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

Furthermore, when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power.

Click to expand...

sedan said:

While you're at it, look up the de Tocqueville quote in your signature.

A generous reader might say it's an extremely poor translation, but really it is so distorted that it should rightly be called an outright falsehood.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikiquote

Click to expand...

sangha said:

According to your link, the woman was suffering from a "medical emergency condition" and so the law requires the hospital to "informs the individual (or a person acting on the individual’s behalf) of the risks and benefits to the individual of such examination and treatment"

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Ok, I went back and read it, and it does point to the provider reasonably informing the patient, so on that exact point you seem to be correct, however. The article we have to go on here is rather vague, and one sided to be able to jump to the conclusion that she was not informed of this. All we seem to have is her/ACLU side of things. Further, the article is so biased as to infer that there are no other hospitals near her. That is false. She could have gone to Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids Mi., it was 37 min. away.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Ok, I went back and read it, and it does point to the provider reasonably informing the patient, so on that exact point you seem to be correct, however. The article we have to go on here is rather vague, and one sided to be able to jump to the conclusion that she was not informed of this. All we seem to have is her/ACLU side of things. Further, the article is so biased as to infer that there are no other hospitals near her. That is false. She could have gone to Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids Mi., it was 37 min. away.

Click to expand...