<<plenty of the clients were approached first by nurses and other health care workers who urged them to get a lawyer due to substandard care>>
I've had the good fortune, demanded working in one of the top institutions in child care:The Childrens' Hospital of Boston...where physicians invented procedures, that today we take for granted...Dr. Hardy Hendron, Dr. Judah Folkman are among them, one of the physicians eradicated Reye's syndrome....the list can go on and on...I witnessed children walking out of our ICU that would never have made it in my first upstate NY hospital job...
I did take care of transports from other non-tertiary care institutions where at times, there was mal-practice or ignorance...as an ICU nurse, my goal was to take care of the child and our physicians, social workers took care of nudging the parents in that direction...
<<The ones who take it badly are usually the ones who screwed up>>
Perhaps in some cases but not my experience, but the caveat as enumerated before: I worked in a hospital where "good" was not enough...excellence, thinking outside the box was expected...the pedi surgeons/anesthesiologists have taken the hit at Childrens' and I never witnessed malpractice by these guys...can't speak for other physicians in other regions of the country...
<<My first cousin was born brain-damaged due to hypoxia almost 50 years ago because the nurses held her knees together until the doctor got there>>>
I'm sorry to hear of your cousin...circa 1954...unfortunately, we had no where near the information we have today...and certainly based on information we have today...the nurse's behavior is unacceptable...today L&D nurses know how to deliver a child if necessary...
<<He rolled in a couple of hours after the phone call, expecting the usual slow nullipara delivery, but by then it was too late to try magnesium. I didn't sue, either.>>
I'm so sorry for your loss at that stage of your pregnancy, truly a difficult loss beyond measure. I have 2 friends who went through that kind of loss...I don't know how long ago it was. The main reason for mag/citrate is if the mom is hypertensive, preeclamptic, compromising circulation to the fetus...I'm not aware of it being used as sole therapy for slowing down delivery...if anything, it is a smooth muscle relaxant and actually plays a role in facilitating delivery...alcohol drips, terbutaline drips, prostoglandins are more the norm to slow down a delivery.
Re: sedation methods used in the 70's, this was very much trial and error...many women at that time did not want to go through agonizing delivery...General anesthesia was the first method used, then demerol(but by the late 70's as a student in training, it was found that demerol in the transitional phase of labor was detrimental to the baby)...then epidural analgesia became more refined and widely utilized...I disagree that it's crazy and stupid...many women, even nurses I know choose this route after going to LaMaize classes...the pain is just too difficult to bear for some...yes, labor does slow down, more accurately, the mothers' ability to push is compromised...but that's where the expertise of a good anesthesiologist and nurse come in...carefully titrating analgesia to minimally compromise the course of the delivery...
<<I would discount completely any so-called randomized clinical trial that did not make a distinction based on whether the mother was drugged or not>>>
I agree and the researchers in the field agree...if you do a pub med search for outcomes, or even the references in the NEJM article I posted, you will find these trials you are referencing...
<<You seem to believe that Edwards is venal and a liar, so are his expert witnesses, the defense lawyers are incompetent,>>>
It's no doubt that since his practice tried many CP cases, he may have done that were legitimate...
<< the defense expert witnesses are morons, the judges calling the shots in these cases too stupid to find their behinds with both hands, and the juries even stupider than the defense lawyers and the judges.>>>
Because you don't know me...I believe that your assumptions are quite over the top and presumptuous, and inaccurate...
The expert witnesses in many of these cases are not stupid by any means...are quite bright...Edwards and other attorneys that take these cases are very bright too...they happened on a niche clientele. Distraught about having a disabled child, with no abosolute evidence that it was not caused by perinatal malpractice...and as you well know...when asked by the defense, "can you state that beyond any reasonable doubt that baby A's CP was NOT caused by malpractice....that is the clincher...because nobody can say that especially when there are factors that may or may not have contributed...one can find an expert witness to support your claims...as I'm sure you know...
<< You, on the other hand, who never actually sat in on one of his cases, nor read the entire record, know the truth. Interesting . . . . no doubt you find it comforting to think about how much smarter, you, a nurse, are than everybody actually involved in the case.>>
<<and the juries even stupider than the defense lawyers and the judges.>>>
Depends on the jury...stupid is not how I'd describe them...under informed,misinformed, and quite sypmathetic to a parents' loss and plight is more how I'd describe them...
<<You, on the other hand, who never actually sat in on one of his cases, nor read the entire record, know the truth. Interesting>>>
I've not sat in on one of his cases, but I've heard enough details...and the fact that he specialized in CP cases is suspect enough...
But I did sit on a similar case in Boston in a case similar to an Edwards case...a family seeking reparations from Childrens' for their then 7yo daughter who spent 48 hours in the NICU after being born and transferred to our institution...the baby never required ventilation, was weaned readily off oxygen, fed well and discharged within 48 hours...I knew both physicians(attendings by the time of the trial) who couldn't even remember the baby because she was a 'non-event'...meaning she required no heroic invasive monitoring or intervention...I knew their history of taking care of children...thorough, among the brightest in the country and most compassionate...they'd saved many a child that in another institution would have died...the problem was not their actions, but the lack of enough nursing documentation in the chart...as is frequent...and the physicians' inadequate documenting(it is this factor that lost their case)....regarding the jury: certainly, NOT a jury of their peers...working class people who were unable to understand the jargon carefully chosen by the defense, the very emotional pleas for justice by the defense...and could identify with a family and child brought to the courtroom...as I said earlier, these were young attendings with very high standards for themselves, spent many a night standing vigil with sick, unstable children to assure their well being...and to be hit with this kind of law suit was demoralizing...Childrens was unwilling to settle and went to trial...they felt strongly that their staff had acted according to the standards of care...
<<but no doubt you find it comforting to think about how much smarter, you, a nurse, are than everybody actually involved in the case>>>
Another unfair assumption...in the future if you can frame your assumptions in question format, I may find them more amenable to discussion.........I'm answering you this time to clarify presumptions you have made to you and this board...
BTW...I do consulting/chart reviews for both sides of these cases...
MY last post to you until you can post civil, non-condescending and personal attacks with inaccurate information even when you disagree...
Zeta |
