ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/19/2018 12:37 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.689 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/04/2010 12:42 PM ID: 82321 Permalink   

Mother of Nine Sues Hospital After Being Sterilized Without Her Consent

 

Massachusetts: 35-year-old Tessa Savicki has launched legal action against a hospital and a number of its staff for carrying out a tubal ligation after a C-section rather than inserting an intra-uterine device like she requested.

Savicki has had nine children to several fathers, three of which are in her mother's custody and two of which qualify for public aid, and has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. She realises she won't get much public sympathy but wanted one more baby.

"I would never have the right to tell anyone else 'because you have this many kids, that's enough.' I take care of my kids. I love my kids. I was not ready to make that kind of decision [for permanent sterilization]," said Savicki.

 
  Source: www.upi.com  
    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  43 Comments
  
  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  
 
Well some will not agree with me but I hope she OWNS every single one of those bastards that did this. I suffered the opposite and was not sterilized when I had signed the forms for it and went into the surgery room to come out with not just the little cut bandaged up under my bellybutton, but a bikini-line cut all the way. I have that report in my possesion where it states he did not only cut my tubes but cauterized them and the reason I had a laproscopy was because the endometriosis was so bad.

I also have the report from my current OB/GYN who at first I feel treated me like I got the abortion I needed to have from a .001 chance of the 2000 tubal failing. All that changed when he went in just fine under my belly button and he found out that it looked like a failed attempt at best for part of one tube and nothing on the other(I have that report in my possesion also)so the first Dr who I can´t name unless I want to be sued if that isn´t a joke.

I think she is a douche for wanting more kids and having Hodgkins Lymphoma because she isn´t having the children for any other reason than she is addicted to pregnancy. I think women like her are addicted to the way pregnancy hormones.

Her amount of kids really does not matter and the fact that the Dr. did it and the staff had to be aware because they do the checking of the bracelet, the input of the type of procedure, signature stating this was the correct thing and the bracelet being checked and the procedure one last time before you are put under.

We can´t let this Dr and the staff get away with this and not because she doesn´t need anymore, but because if this guy doesn´t pay and gets away with it like mine did who is to say how many more Dr.s will either give the procedure or not do it for whatever personal reasons. It is unethical and negligent, malpractice and THIS is why Dr.s deserve to get sued and lose their license, but the AMA won´t even slap him on the wrist and this report will be hidden from potential employees(patients) so other women will be in danger of having their reproductive capabilities to be with a whim and a prayer.

My case was not heard because of those precious malpractice tort reforms which spelled out that even if you have 6 months after the date of something being wrong that was unable to be found out you can only sue if he DOES tie your tubes and people if you get pregnant because your Dr didn´t tie you it is considered that you were aware of this, even if you don´t know how bad, the moment someone says you are pregnant.

Damn I am so angry.
 
  by: TaraB     01/04/2010 01:42 PM     
  I would be in favor of her winning a suit but only  
 
if the money went to the grandmother to pay for raising the kids, the hospital to pay all the unpaid bills for the births and the cancer treatment and to the government for all the SSI and public aid she has received and she doesn´t get a dime. I could live with that. This is malpractice, and no she won´t get much sympathy from me, she is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Over population is destroying the planet. 10 kids is insane, especially if you expect society to foot the bill. At 35 years old with her oldest child being 21 you know she has never worked a day in her life or paid a dime into social security.
 
  by: valkyrie123     01/04/2010 02:46 PM     
  I´m having trouble  
 
sympathizing with this woman. Yes, technically it is wrong to sterilize her, but she was just going to bring more miserable people into the world (miserable because they had her as a mother, I mean). She probably just doesn´t want her benefits stopped.
 
  by: gryphon50a   01/04/2010 02:50 PM     
  also  
 
she says she "takes care" of her kids. How can that be when her mother has three of them. I know people like this and I doubt she´s really taking care of the ones that live with her, either.
 
  by: gryphon50a   01/04/2010 02:51 PM     
  I havev always maintained  
 
SIMPLY,don´t breed ´em if you can´t feed ´em.
 
  by: OLD MAN   01/04/2010 04:45 PM     
  Hospitals  
 
should stop playing god. how do you sterilize someone without their consent.

This idea of dehumanizing people with "Savicki has had nine children to several fathers" what difference does it make how many fathers she slept with. Will this be ok if it were one father only and he is not around? jon and Kate + 8!

Two of her children are not minors anymore, which reduces the number, she is in this situation not by choice only, she also has H-Lymphoma cancer, she is currently living with a partner, who also happens to be the father of 3 of her children, now the numbers are down to 4 whom she cares for and all of a sudden she should not have more children!!??

I freaking hate people who tell other people how many children they can have, or how many children people can have. Who the F**k are you? Have you ever gone to someone with lots of children and said, can I help you take care of some of your children?

Are you currently overwhelmed by taking care of some other peoples children? STFU if any of the answers are NO. Because the amount of tax payers money (If thats your concern) that goes to these mothers for these kids, is a drop in the bucket, compare to what is being embezzled by f**ing politicians and other government officials. They f*ng charge everything on a tax payer, single lunch outing on a trip is equivaent to what these moms get in a month, and here you are crying, " She shold not have these many children"

/END RANT.
(I NEED MY COFFEE NOW)
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     01/04/2010 05:05 PM     
   
 
Valk- I think she should set up trusts for her kids if she does win because she isn´t going to see that last one hit 18 most likely.

I too won´t see my unexpected hit 18 but thats because he isn´t here.

I would be more sympathetic to those who want medical malpractice tort reforms if these Dr.´s that truly do something screwy like this Dr or mine would be punished and it being available to anyone who is thinking about seeing that Dr.

Skcuss- I agree the Dr had no right to do it. The rest of the story is only to cloud the real problem here and that is another Dr decided to play God with a woman´s Reproductive System. It sickens me and I felt sick to my stomach after reading this because it brought back a lot of bad memories.
 
  by: TaraB     01/04/2010 06:07 PM     
  Winning the money might  
 
just keep her off or get her off the welfare rolls and the tax payers won´t have to foot the bill for all the kids.
I´m in agreement that it was not right for the hospital or Dr.´s to have done this and she is ok with sueing them but hopefully any money she gets will be put to good use for the kids.
I´m also a firm believer in the old saying, "If you can´t feed, then don´t breed". This should actualy mean if you can´t feed at your own expense, then don´t breed!
Seems that a very high percentage of these people that want to have many kids either want it for getting more welfare money or figure they can cash in on some tv reality show. Not all, but it´s a proven fact that a very high portion are getting tax payer money.
 
  by: Hoz     01/04/2010 07:19 PM     
  nt  
 
Although by law this sort of thing is wrong, I applaud the Doctors action. The fact that they have prevented this terrible woman bringing in another child as an object for her to gain money is a good thing. She obviously is a poor mother and I dread to think how her kids will turn out.

I really think it should be illegal for people like this to have kids if they´re unable to look after them. Parenting license anyone?

@TaraB

He may be playing God with her reproductive system but from the looks of it she doesn´t seem to deserve one. She´s playing God with lives of children she can´t look after which is a bit more worse in my opinion.

Why should people who pay tax have to fit the bill for someone who obviously can´t make responsible decisions and does selfish acts like this to become a burden on society?

If she had a job, was able to look after all these kids appropriately and sorted her life out then fine, it would be a major injustice but I just can´t feel any sympathy for her. Maybe she should love the kids she´s got rather than just awaiting the next one.
 
  by: Anost1   01/04/2010 08:03 PM     
  For my doctorate...  
 
...I´m going to write a journal on what I call the "Clown Car Principal". This lady is a great example.
You figure it out.
 
  by: CaptainChainsaw   01/04/2010 11:20 PM     
  About Her  
 
Yeah they had no right to preform any unauthorized procedures.

About Her again.

What the hell is she doing having children she apparently cannot support and raise. This lady is so wrong.

The kids will suffer for her selfishness.
 
  by: ichi     01/04/2010 11:59 PM     
  I Fall Just Short Of  
 
thinking about requiring a license to breed. Again letting the worst case scenario(like this) dictate the norm would accomplish little and lose much.
 
  by: ichi     01/05/2010 12:03 AM     
  .........  
 
@ SKCUSS

Unlike you, I don´t think people should be breeding out of control. When I was born there were almost 4 billion people on the planet; now it´s fast approaching 7 billion. Considering that we already have millions starving to death each year, do you think that we should let our population reach 70 billion, or 700 billion? Where would YOU draw the line?

@ Anost1

Parenting licence - definitely! It could serve the dual purpose of tempering our rampant population growth and breeding the scum out of society.

lol @ Captain Chainsaw.
 
  by: Maggie the Cat   01/05/2010 12:15 AM     
  @Maggie  
 
Yes you are right. We should have stopped at 3 1/2 billion. Thats when I was born. Then I would not have to argue with you. YAY...

Starvation, when we are using 3/4 of world resources, our western soup kitchens which cater to the needy are always full of people, they get their portion from restaurants that throw away food, tons of it everyday.

Now Africans have jumped on a different bandwagon, sugarcane for fuel. They have already started scattering villagers all over to clear the way for these plants! For freaking fuel for their cars! If they can plant Sugarcane, why cant they plant maize, cassava, potatoes, and other foods, since they do have fertile land for agriculture?
In Kenya Tea is taking over forests and jungles are now becoming narrower, to an extent, they have to fight with other animals. TEA!! For F**k sake so that English can enjoy their afternoon favourite drink. DO you know what is Tetley´s excuse? We are creating jobs! Whaaaaa??

If you really want to know the culprit to the World demise, dont lok at these people who are reprocreating... Look beyond and you might stare at yourslef.
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     01/05/2010 01:36 AM     
  What´s the name of the hospital.  
 
I want to send Octomom to it.
 
  by: walter3ca   01/05/2010 01:41 AM     
  Rights?  
 
She has her right to have kids, but what about my rights? Don´t I have the right to say "I´m not going to pay any more for you to have kids"? Where are my rights as a taxpayer?

The idea that the working should pay and pay for these people to breed like rabbits is ridiculous.
 
  by: cranky_paranoid     01/05/2010 01:55 AM     
  um  
 
i need to see a pic im wondering what she looks like maybe that ugly or that much of a whore looking.
 
  by: drk   01/05/2010 02:23 AM     
  One thing to consider  
 
A major wall between the patient and physician is the difference in lingo-- the communication failure. I´ve seen a case in particular that a man denied having chemotherapy because he understood it as something completely different-- even though it was explained thoroughly to him. He missed out on a life saving/extending procedure and the Doctors thought he was just ignorant. The patient was very mad when he found out what he was really missing.. go figure.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     01/05/2010 02:29 AM     
  Go Doctor  
 
Last thing we need in the world needs is 9+ kids from one person. I know this idea may piss some people off but lets think of our resources that will be consumed.

As George Calrin said "make one to replace your wife and that is it."
 
  by: juggalotoka   01/05/2010 04:13 AM     
  people who  
 
care about their kids, don´t have a million kids. They limit the size of their families to their resources. The more you have, the less attention they get, they lower the standard of child care you can provide. College for nine is usually an impossibility. If she really wanted to raise children and care for them WELL she wouldn´t have so many. People like this usually want benefits or they want to keep providing the (ever-changing) man in their lives with a child. It´s about them, not the kids.
 
  by: gryphon50a   01/05/2010 03:50 PM     
  1 Reply of who knows how many  
 
One thing to consider
A major wall between the patient and physician is the difference in lingo-- the communication failure. I´ve seen a case in particular that a man denied having chemotherapy because he understood it as something completely different-- even though it was explained thoroughly to him. He missed out on a life saving/extending procedure and the Doctors thought he was just ignorant. The patient was very mad when he found out what he was really missing.. go figure.

by: luc1ddr3am

I am pretty sure that deliver the child by C-section and the forms they have you sign after they read through it with the pregnant woman never mentioned something like "Oh and please go ahead and do what you will with my reproductive system just because you have a God complex."
I can tell you exactly what would have happened if she did want a tubaligation. If she has decided that she wanted a tubaligation she would have been given a form to read over WITH the Dr. or midwife that explained the whole procedure and that any time prior to the procedure taking place she can change her mind. The form after it is going through is then signed by the woman seeking tubaligation and the Dr. or his representative.
That´s it? Not even. The form is valid for 30 days from the date signed and once again you are told you can void it at any time. 3 days before the tubaligation(unless you have it done the day after birth OR C-sections right at the time like she was done) a person from the hospital or clinic where you will be having the procedure will call you to go over everything once again(C-sec is done before taken in).
THAT isn´t the end of it. The day you go into have the procedure done you go through your admission and they go over the form and double-check you want it and know what it means and then THEY sign the form in the other section along with having your signature for that day and up you go to pre-op. Before you take some Visteril or any kind of medication they might give before taking you into pre-op they make you pee in a cup in front of them and have you watch the pregnancy test with them. Once it is negative and the medication is ready they go over it with you ONE LAST TIME.

I should know it inside and out since I was lucky enough to need TWO of the damn things (the copies of the surgery and the form for tubaligation are in my possession), well actually I just had the first one so the bastard who is responsible for my son being non-viable could practice how many ways we can cut a patient and not do anything because "GOD DECIDES NOT HIM"
 
  by: TaraB     01/05/2010 07:37 PM     
  2 and not stopping  
 
"@TaraB
He may be playing God with her reproductive system but from the looks of it she doesn´t seem to deserve one. She´s playing God with lives of children she can´t look after which is a bit worse in my opinion. "

How do you or anyone else determine that? I had an asshole Dr. that thought he was doing God’s work when he claimed he gave me a tubaligation and 6 almost 7 years later I ended up pregnant and it wasn´t until I had to have a therapeutic abortion and a ´second´ tubaligation that I found out he never cut or cauterized my tubes. The reason I didn´t get pregnant or possible early term miscarriages at two other times, but couldn´t prove it because my GYN at that time and myself both thought my tubes were tied and even when I found out I was pregnant with my son in November of 2006 I was prepped and on my way to have surgery until the US they did to determine the position of the ectopic pregnancy and found out he was an actual fetus and had his own heartbeat. The Dr that never cut my tubes when he was supposed to? He played God with many women’s reproductive system and once he found out Michigan only allows reproductive malpractice if the Dr. DOES tie the tubes against someone’s wishes. Not tying them but allowing a woman to think so is oh so legal.

"Although by law this sort of thing is wrong, I applaud the Doctors action. The fact that they have prevented this terrible woman bringing in another child as an object for her to gain money is a good thing. She obviously is a poor mother and I dread to think how her kids will turn out."

Wow you sure do assume a hell of a lot don´t you? She is obviously a poor mother? So if she was a wealthy woman it wouldn´t matter none? The fact that the Dr did a procedure a surgery without permission and he should be applauded? Terrible woman? What did she do that makes her terrible other than bring in a IUD so she couldn´t get pregnant and he instead makes her infertile. She wasn´t "gaining´ any money and we are saying it is ok to be negligent as long as it is for the ´good´ of some moral majority. Talk about arrogance!
 
  by: TaraB     01/05/2010 08:25 PM     
  3 and who knows  
 
Wow I don´t even know where to start. I seriously wonder what the hell is wrong with our society when we applaud and condone what this Dr did just because YOU think she shouldn´t have had anymore children. This isn´t about how many kids she did or didn´t have, this is about the Dr who she had a contract with to perform a certain procedure and while he did do that (deliver her child) he also broke the contract and the trust of any patient current or future that has a lick of sense when he decided to perform an unwanted and never discussed procedure. He and any other Dr does NOT have the right to perform surgery on anyone that is above and beyond the procedure that you have specifically authorized with your signature.
If she only had two children would you all feel the same? What if he had done this to you or one of your family or friends? Again put aside the amount of children because that actually has very little to do with what happened. If you are so worried about the resources of the world then make sure no one you know breeds, but that won´t change what this is really about and that is the negligence and malpractice that this Dr did to one of this patients.
"Why should people who pay tax have to fit the bill for someone who obviously can´t make responsible decisions and does selfish acts like this to become a burden on society?"
That doesn´t matter in all reality, you and the others are thinking of it by how many children she has and it is legal to have. There is no law that restricts the amount of children and the fact that so many people are thinking that we need to start allowing the government to tell us how many children and when we should force women to undergo procedures if they want them or not. Talk about 1984 good lord. But if you want it where men are sterilized since it is the easier procedure and they can go back to work right away then we might talk. Maybe all these men that runs around depositing their sperm into young girls and walk around with 19 kids in some cases. See that’s the guy thought right?
"If she had a job, was able to look after all these kids appropriately and sorted her life out then fine, it would be a major injustice but I just can´t feel any sympathy for her. Maybe she should love the kids she´s got rather than just awaiting the next one."
Well if anyone would have actually read the whole article the first two are grown and living their own lives 2 of them actually qualify for public aid, no one else is receiving it and the last ones are with the man she is with now and he works to support them. So all this bitching about taxes being paid and it is for 2 children that have disabilities that would qualify for help no matter where they lived or how many siblings. The mother herself is dying so you really can´t wish much more on her and 3 children are living with her mother. Hell she doesn´t want sympathy. There is the emotional part so everyone get on it get over it and look at the damn bigger picture.

She brought the IUD that the Dr was in charge of placing which would have prevented another birth. He instead makes her infertile without her permission and THAT is the crime here not how many kids she does or doesn´t have.
 
  by: TaraB     01/05/2010 08:27 PM     
  @TaraB  
 
I know this is probably unwelcome advice, but you might want to temper your arguments a bit. They become rather aimless and meandering, and end up being excessively long, to the point where people can´t reply to them in an effective manner. This is basically the text version of talking louder than the other person until they can´t be heard any more.


On the topic at hand, I´m with the people who can´t sympathize with this woman. It was wrong to do this behind her back, without consent -- but clearly something did need to be done, even if it wasn´t this.
 
  by: velger   01/05/2010 10:55 PM     
  Velger  
 
Velger- I thank you for giving your opinion and I used to write replies that were short until several people would ask over and over to explain what I was saying for each reply. As for the lengths in this summary I don´t think it matters what I said or didn´t because no one really cares what the real point is. Instead they want to bitch about how the state is paying for this woman to have child after child when the article even says the only two children getting any Aid are two with disabilities.

The "tax payer" isn´t paying shit for the two oldest or the 3 youngest as the dad has said he is working and he pays the bills for them. We don´t know why the 3 living with her mother are not at home and yet people have decided that they obviously know her business when they can´t even take a few minutes and read the summary and the article to find out what is truth and what is make-believe. No one expects pity for her and I haven´t asked for it, I just happen to see the real issue here.

It doesn´t matter if she had 1 child or 10 children, the Dr. violated her and the law. I had a Dr do the opposite to me and hell yes I get upset when I read stories like this because it usually brings out the idiotic replies. Simple basic facts and the only thing the court will look at is the Dr. performed a procedure he had no consent and no right to do. His actions are negligent and he determined to make a woman infertile instead of inserting the IUD which is what she asked for and gave permission. I don´t understand how people can say it was something that needed to be done and that the Dr. did the right thing, he violated the law and since Drs usually get away with paying settlements instead of having something like taking away his licence which should be done.
 
  by: TaraB     01/06/2010 12:57 AM     
  @ TaraB  
 
I don´t really take issue with the tax part, that problem is so enormous that one person would make no difference anyway. The issue I have is that with that many children, the chances that she is giving them each the attention and care they deserve is extremely low. And I don´t mean that she arbitrarily must be neglecting the children, merely that there is not enough hours in a day to pay attention and care for all the physical, emotional, and psychological needs of 9 children, never mind 10. People who did this in the ´old world´ generally were the kind of people who were rich and could afford to pay a governess to share the burden of the childrens´ needs. Somehow I doubt this woman can if she has already given up custody of three of them to her mother.
 
  by: velger   01/06/2010 01:15 AM     
  addendum  
 
Oh, and, just to clarify, while I find it hard to sympathize with her, I certainly don´t think that clipping her wings while she was under was appropriate by any means. But clearly this woman did perhaps need counseling and if she really could not commit to curb her problem, she should´ve been encouraged to do this operation willingly.
 
  by: velger   01/06/2010 01:19 AM     
  yep  
 
I´m okay with this. She may have not been ready to make that decision but I think the tax payers were. "She should not be judged on the basis of being a poor, single mother of 9."...I´m sorry but no one forced your legs apart and made you pregnant 9 times.
 
  by: ronny_cordova   01/06/2010 01:42 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
It is not long enough, make it even longer since some people dont get it the first time.

@Ronny.
despite that some mentioned Tara´s post to be a mile long, it seems like you failed to understand the actual point. Using one excuse and infuse it on the next is absolutely not right, case and point being. TaraB mentioned again and again it has been mentioned that, this womans children only 2 are receiving aid from the government and it is because they have some kind of disability.

Otherwise they are all well cared for, out of which 2 are adults, 3 are with their grandma, 4 remaining are with her, whom she is living with the father of the 3.

So who has the right to say she needs to be clipped?

If tax payers have anyone to freaking worry about, it should be your politicians who are giving out Trillions for embezzlements, to CEO´s who right after receiving their dough, went to celebrate by throwing away yet another million dollars.

It is as though people read through caption and minds are made up to start dissing, due to the fact skewed and caption starts dehumanizing.
"Mother of Nine" WTF?

It is not about a mother of nine, it is about humanity gone wrong, terribly wrong. TaraB is a mother, I am a father this decision is ours to make about our bodies. She even went as far as to supply HER OWN INTRAUTERINE DEVICE. This is in the 1st 3 lines of the source, it says
"Tessa Savicki, 35, whose children range in age from 3 to 21, said she provided an intra-uterine device to health care professionals to be installed after her last Cesarean-section, but they instead performed a tubal ligation, which Savicki said she had not authorized, the Boston " Instead you worry about WHAT?
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     01/06/2010 03:29 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
I just can´t see her decision on turning from a "poor, single mother of 9" to a poor, single mother of 10 as being beneficial to ANYONE. Not her OR her kids. Not to mention the fact that she has cancer. Do you REALLY think she should be thinking about bringing more kids into this world? Definitely not. This woman is selfish. That´s all I can say.

I agree that what the Doctor did is wrong by the standards of the law. But from my perspective it looks to be for the greater good.
 
  by: Anost1   01/06/2010 05:39 AM     
  @ ichi  
 
dude how would that* work?(the human breeding license)

Police Man John: "oh whats this now? a baby without a license!? guess i´ll be confiscating that." (takes 2 month old baby and tosses gently into the incinerator) "now here is your fine and a mandate to have your tubes ripped out and your partners balls chopped off... oh yeah have a nice day."
 
  by: Devil Duck     01/06/2010 01:30 PM     
  ~  
 
I have to concur that the idea of a breeding license is very stupid. I think at base it boils down to an animalistic urge to eliminate competition, regardless of whatever cause people try to dress it up in.
 
  by: velger   01/06/2010 03:09 PM     
  @skcusswentrohs  
 
I was well aware of that fact. I´m still okay with this. There is no reason for one person to be creating 9 children in today´s world (Unless you are Amish). The world is getting overpopulated enough without people having 9-10 children a pop. Imagine what our current economical status would be if you multiplied the current population by 10? It just isn´t justified. Many other countries have population control laws in effect it is nothing new.
 
  by: ronny_cordova   01/06/2010 03:26 PM     
  Velger,skcuss and Anost  
 
Velger-" But clearly this woman did perhaps need counseling and if she really could not commit to curb her problem, she should´ve been encouraged to do this operation willingly."

Now this I can agree with totally and I think her family should have even pushed for that to happen. I thank you for seeing that just because I think the Dr was wrong it does not mean I think her choices were smart, but they were hers and not the Dr´s.

Skcuss-"It is not long enough, make it even longer since some people dont get it the first time."

HAHA! I don´t think most people care what I said, they want to cover it up with their fantasy of why it was done so it can be the ´right´ choice. Thank you for seeing it for what it really is in this case and that is another Dr. wanting to be God.

Anost1- "Do you REALLY think she should be thinking about bringing more kids into this world?"

No and I never said I did think she should. But my opinion about her, OctoMom, Mel Gibson (He calls himself OctoDad) or The Duggars really is just that, my opinion. After having a Dr decide to do what HE wanted vs what I requested I know personally how violated she feels and if she had 2 kids or 9 that point is for the emotional and opinionated side in all of us.

Not that it matters or many care, my reason was medical in nature and after spending 6 months on bedrest so I didn´t lose my baby girl or die myself and leave my then 4 year old without a mother, my husband and I both decided that a tubilagation was the answer. I trusted that my OB/GYN did the procedure because he was my Dr. and when they start playing God once you are knocked out and in their custody, for a lack of a better word, you should feel they will be looking after your best interests and not their own or what they think society or their religion thinks.
 
  by: TaraB     01/06/2010 04:32 PM     
  Population control freaks  
 
" Many other countries have population control laws in effect it is nothing new."

You know I usually hate seeing someone say what I am about to when it comes to issues like war or excetera BUT..

If you prefer population control laws then move there. I don´t want the government to be able to force ANY unwanted surgery on me or anyone else.

If we start with population control and then what is next? Well if you don´t make over X amount then YOU can have your tubes tied or vasectomy, or if you are of a certain religion you may have more children than if you you aren´t, Farm families are allowed more than city families?

Who would make the rules as to who or how many? Our Government? Yeah that is a comforting feeling when they can´t even balance a budget with the money they are given and have us in debt up to our eye´s. Leave my reproductive system to my own personal choice and if you or anyone else wants population control get yourself sterilized.
 
  by: TaraB     01/06/2010 05:23 PM     
  @ixusus, tara  
 
Did either of you make note of the fact that *she* provided the IUD in the source? Something seems sketchy about this scenario.
 
  by: Luc1dDr3am     01/06/2010 08:26 PM     
  @tara  
 
I apologize.. Just read that you did see that. Is that a normal practice? It seems strange to take an item and presume it is sterile from the patient.

Also as velger said... You´re personal bias is clouding objective reasoning-- this is all alleged happenings.... Not quite fact. Personally I´m getting sick of reading about rants that target an entire communit for the fault of a few. Keep the rants private and the facts public if you wish to help others avoid your plight.

Doctors and patients are both imperfect and breeding animosity only increases errors that will be experienced in the long run.

This applies even if you acknowledge only a few are bad--- the public will not know what docs to trust or not. The very reason you cant mention your bad docs name is because the appropriate channels must be followed before name and shame can be done. After which names are accesible and publishable for what they did wrong.

In regards to this case I´m still having trouble understanding how the all the safety measures to prevent these errors failed.... Typically the doctor wouldnt have this much freedom to "play god" would he? Surely someone is making sure the right paper work and informed consents are present-- unless it was malicious which I highly doubt.


 
  by: Luc1dDr3am     01/06/2010 08:57 PM     
  Well  
 
luc1dDr3am

I have never had an IUD put in, but you can bring one into the procedure and they will take it and it will be sterilized before it is placed. Depending on the medication there are some injections that you get sent to your home and then bring in with you for the Medical Assistant to give to you.

As for my personal bias is clouding objective reasoning? Well I react to things with a mixture of facts and emotions and I will not apologize to anyone for that. Just like your posts are only clinical and dry with no care to the actual person or people that might be effected by something. It is your style and I wouldn´t ask you to actually think of the people or emotions that go with certain things so please don´t expect me to change who I am because it won´t happen.


"Personally I´m getting sick of reading about rants that target an entire communit for the fault of a few. Keep the rants private and the facts public if you wish to help others avoid your plight."

Is this an official warning similar to what Jane got from you not too long ago? Because if it is I would like to have Lois, Ixuzus and Caution to be a part of this. Otherwise you are a article checker along with of the other people here and I would expect nothing else.

Now if it is personal warning I would have to say I am tired of seeing the "upper echelon" of the medical community to not be held up like the end all be all just because one is becoming a part of it. I will rant night and day about Dr.s being able to be guilty of malpractice and negligence and because of tort reform and the unwillingness for an open access to patients and possible patients to be blocked constantly by the AMA.

"Doctors and patients are both imperfect and breeding animosity only increases errors that will be experienced in the long run.
This applies even if you acknowledge only a few are bad--- the public will not know what docs to trust or not. The very reason you cant mention your bad docs name is because the appropriate channels must be followed before name and shame can be done. After which names are accesible and publishable for what they did wrong."

Actually you are 100% WRONG. The reason I can not name "MY" bad Dr is because in our state as I am sure you are well aware from I was unable to bring any kind of charges against him because in reproductive cases you can only seek damages two ways #1 if you file papers for any reproductive malpractice it has to within 6 months of finding out the mistake occured. #2 You can not sue the Dr, Hospital or anyone else unless they do something to PREVENT fertility and not if they did not perform the surgery.

The AMA wouldn´t do anything even with the proof of the surgery not being done, because as usual they don´t do anything until it becomes a danger to more than just the few women that he has admitted to not performing the surgery on. He also only admitted that it was only Gods decision to stop pregnancies, not his, when he found out that he could not be sued because of the way the tort reform is worded. As sick as it is myself or anyone else that has been damaged by him can be sued if we say his name because he hasn´t and can´t be charged for it.

So while you may be somewhat intelligent and you may be good at what you will be doing you do not understand what the malpractice of a patient can really entail and the OB/GYN in my case and in hers should both have their license pulled when they in turn decide who they will or won´t do the surgery on AFTER agreeing to do so. Now they were in their rights and I would have actually respected my Dr more if he would have said he didn´t do tubaligations, just births. That would have given me the choice to have my tubaligation done by someone competant enough to do so.

"In regards to this case I´m still having trouble understanding how the all the safety measures to prevent these errors failed.... Typically the doctor wouldnt have this much freedom to "play god" would he? Surely someone is making sure the right paper work and informed consents are present-- unless it was malicious which I highly doubt."

All of the right ´paperwork´ can be done by competant staff all day and night and if the surgeon does not do the procedure the papers mean nothing. The Dr obviously has enough freedom to do whatever they feel like once you, the patient, is put under and the staff inside the surgical unit either agrees with his idea that she shouldn´t have anymore children OR if the staff felt pressured by the Dr or hospital to not speak up. He tied her tubes vs inserting an IUD I would think that there is a big enough difference for the *supposed* intelligent Dr would know the difference between.
 
  by: TaraB     01/07/2010 11:56 PM     
  @ skcuss  
 
That fact that the planet´s wealth and resources are unevenly distibuted is no secret. I´ll make a deal with you; if you can resolve that problem, I´ll relent somewhat on my stance on population control.
 
  by: Maggie the Cat   01/08/2010 06:22 AM     
  @Tara  
 
I issue no warnings and post only as a user. I advertise my news checking and education very little, if at all publically in the forums. I´m presuming you are insinuating that I´ve threatened to ´take action´ against someone because I didn agree with what they posted? I assure you I dont have that ability and if i did i would never threaten to use It for my own devices against people i enjoy conversig with. So by all means get anyone involved you like we
can talk all about it.

I assure you I will always speak my mind and have no quarrel in the fact that im not going to stroke anyones ego and may even ruffle some feathers just as you ub mine when you alienate the majority of a community that i look forward to participating in and improving. If you can´t handle my angle of view its not really a problem for me. As you wish to share your experience I wish to share mine for the public to read and critisize. I´m not looking for the majority to agree with me when i post.... knowing more about you then the average user and enjoying speaking with you on other topics won´t stop me from issuing my
opinion even if its contrary to yours and it won´t stop me from thinking fondly of you either even if i disagree.

With that said I´m insulted you´d say im issuing official warnings to anyone. No such event occured although my post may have been dry clinical and tasteless :-p
 
  by: Luc1dDr3am     01/11/2010 03:59 PM     
  @tara -- back on topic  
 
I´ve been trying to focus what happened and how from the published article because I´m not familiar with your entire experience except for what i can pickup here so I´m simply not comparing your events to this one. Especially as they seem somewhat unrelated... Sharing only the fact that they may both be sleezeballs.

This doesnt change my hesitation to cast the first stone at the doctor in this case because contrary to what you decided to tell the entire public about me, i dont presume to understand the inner workings of a hospital. I´ve seen and know many incompetant doctors i dont have any doubt they exist. What i may have had trouble emphasizing is that i want to know exactly what went wrong in he chain of events that lead to this mistake--- assumin its not malicious.... Remember innocent until proven guilty! This is America. You speak as if i dont care what happened to this woman but she has already presented her case now im trying to understand the other side.

Another fundamental point I´ve failed to emphasize is that some doctors are just as manipulative and corrupt as people outside the field. To demonize doctors alone is illogical when the system itself is also largely to blame. For example the law failed to protect you and a selfish *person* took advantage of you.

Trying to be as complete as possible but scrolling up ona touch device is hard to do so ill sign out for now.

 
  by: Luc1dDr3am     01/11/2010 04:30 PM     
  Lucid and General Pt 1 More links more info!  
 
I have two links and info not seen for here and then the follow up story next.
@tara -- back on topic

"What i may have had trouble emphasizing is that i want to know exactly what went wrong in he chain of events that lead to this mistake--- assumin its not malicious.... Remember innocent until proven guilty! This is America. You speak as if i dont care what happened to this woman but she has already presented her case now im trying to understand the other side."

I have found this link which goes a tad deeper and sheds the story and the woman is able to state some other things that the initial summary didn´t have. An example of this is she had her tubes tied in 06, the same year I got pregnant actually, but no more of that. Here is the link and maybe those that were so hard on her might see this different.
http://www.myfoxmaine.com/...

A part of this is very interesting and I am pasting it here because I know many people won´t click the link, so it is not towards you in any way, just wanted it to be in the open.

**Up until the 1970s in the United States men and women were sterilized, many without their knowledge, in eugenics programs to keep "undesirables" from reproducing, reported USA Today . Eugenics is known as the "science" of human improvement through controlled breeding.
In North Carolina, officials are setting up a foundation that would pay reparations to those who were sterilized by such a program .**


This one has even more, including a picture of her, 3 of the kids including the one she had in 06 and she had done what she was told was her IUD in 2006.
http://www.bostonherald.com/...

It also mentions something I said over and over, glad to have some backup finally.
"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"

OHH this is precious and will actually help you understand some more Lucid.
"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.’ ”

Because there wasn´t any! The Dr´s office has a copy in your medical records and you have to take a copy to the hospital on the day of the surgery and hand to the staff.

Here we go!
"Savicki said she brought the IUD into the operating room, unopened and in a box, on Dec. 19, 2006. She said she handed the box to the nurse prior to the planned Caesarean section. Her medical record notes that the IUD was to be implanted following delivery, according to the complaint."

"Post-delivery notes indicate she received a tubal ligation, the complaint says. The surgical notes were reviewed by the Herald.

This is the second time Savicki has sued over reproductive issues. In 2001, she reached a settlement with CVS and a spermacide company after she became pregnant with her now 12-year-old daughter after claiming she bought and used an expired spermacide, according to federal court documents."

So this time instead of Spermacide she got a IUD and the Drs ties her tubes, what a dick.

This is about the mother because I don´t want people to think I agree with her 9 kids, what I do agree with is that she shouldn´t, in fact NO ONE should have to face a Dr either performing or not performing a surgery that you agreed to. Anything else is negligence in the least and malpractice and illegal along with several other things at worse.
"Savicki said her life has stabilized in the last decade after a rocky start. She had her first child at 13 and dropped out of high school in the ninth grade."
 
  by: TaraB     01/11/2010 05:32 PM     
  Lucid, general part2  
 
Here is the follow up story after the news "broke" the case. By the way it wasn´t she that seeked the media out, they were bouncing around with the lawsuits filed seeing if anything good was happening and picked this one up.

*****************
There was a follow-up to the story which to me shows how ugly some people are.
*****************
http://www.bostonherald.com/...

There are a few parts in here also that are much more into the way it happened to Lucid and any others that are following this.

“It hurts. I don’t want my kids suffering,” said Savicki, who lives with her fiance and four of her kids and said she has even dyed her hair to avoid recognition. “One person told me, ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.”

And
"Savicki’s suit against Baystate Medical Center, two nurses and three doctors claims they performed a tubal ligation without her consent on Dec. 19, 2006, following the delivery of her ninth child.

Doctors were supposed to implant an intrauterine device, a reversible form of birth control, according to the complaint in Hampden Superior Court. Instead, a tubal ligation - a procedure cutting or tying a woman’s fallopian tubes - was performed, she claims, preventing her from bearing any more children.

Savicki claims she did not sign a written consent form authorizing the sterilization, which is required for MassHealth patients"

Which is required for ANYONE getting a tubaligation as far as I know. Any of my friends that had one performed all signed that form regardless of our insurance.
And finally(I know I hear the sighs of relief)
"Savicki’s attorney, Max Borten, said he was horrified at the nastiness directed at his client.

“I’m shocked at the virulence,” said Borten, a former obstetrician. “It’s borderline bigotry against somebody that is on public assistance, against somebody that has more than 2.1 children, against somebody that doesn’t have a college degree.”

Savicki, whose children are aged 3 to 21, said she’s been unfairly judged. She says she had eight of her nine children while in committed relationships.

(1221) Comments |"

I left the amount of comments up because I´d like the others on here to see what harrassment she is and will be dealing with. She is 34 and had her first kid at 13, dropped out in the 9th grade and the only thing she has know for the majority of her life is how to be a mother. One extra thing and for anyone that has emailed, facebook commented, texted, or even wrote on the comment sections all over the internet you might watch it if you believe in karma or whatever because all the harrassment she is getting will most likely cause a flare and she might die leaving 9 children and each person that is nasty deserves a bit of it back. Hell half of you were still playing barbies at 13 while she was taking care of her own newborn, bot out babysitting. and all but 1 kid was with 2 different men in long term relationships. If that makes a woman a whole then I´m one because one daughter and my miscarriage was with my ex, and then one daughter and the abortion with my husband now. Watch out SN ladies if your daddys aren´t by one man then we aren´t any damn better than she is.

Lucid I have not forgot about the first response, I will be getting to it next.
 
  by: TaraB     01/11/2010 05:37 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com