Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If she was sterilized without her written consent, then she is entitled to some type of award, IMO. But as has been posted previously, it might be cheap compared to her popping out more babies over the next ten years or so for the taxpayer to support.
She cares so much about her kids, yet is only raising the ones by her current paramore. She said in one article that she had wanted to have another by the guy. The grand mother is raising the other three minors. That's great. I'm sure that the kids she has off loaded feel very special.
My GD's mother off loaded her first on me when the child was a year old. She is a teen now and doing very well, although will always have issues about not being wanted by her mom. She has since popped out another one and has off loaded her to an aunt. This is the second time in four years that she has pawned the baby off on a relative for an extended period of time and the poor little girl has some major emotional issues. We are just waiting for the call asking if I will take her in, as well. I haven't received any support for my GD, but have just contacted the state about getting child support or medicaid for her, as I am now unemployed. I couldn't take in the new child without assistance, but she is my GD's half sister, so I don't know how I could turn her down either.
I believe that there are forms of sterilization that involve inserting a plug in the fallopian tube. That would be a good answer to women like these who have no concept of what it takes to parent and support a child. A time out from breeding would benefit the family and society, IMO. Once the mom is on her feet and has a pot to pee in, she can have the procedure reversed and nominate herself for mother of the year.
The same applies to women who pop out drug baby after drug baby. There has to be a way to curtail this without violating the woman's constitutional right to breed like a feral cat.
Last edited by Magnolia Bloom; 01-07-2010 at 11:09 AM..
Having as many children as you want is one thing if you can pay for their delivery, care and upbringing but that is hardly the case here. She keeps having children whose daddies are likely not contributing much if anything to their care and so she expects the taxpayers to foot the bill. (Too bad "Octomom" didn't go there for her last "delivery," she might be out of the baby business too.) Pretty nervy of this lady to try and defend her right to have as many babies as she feels like when she isn't paying the costs. I wonder how she even came to realize that she had been permanently "spayed?"
Having as many children as you want is one thing if you can pay for their delivery, care and upbringing but that is hardly the case here. She keeps having children whose daddies are likely not contributing much if anything to their care and so she expects the taxpayers to foot the bill. (Too bad "Octomom" didn't go there for her last "delivery," she might be out of the baby business too.) Pretty nervy of this lady to try and defend her right to have as many babies as she feels like when she isn't paying the costs. I wonder how she even came to realize that she had been permanently "spayed?"
'Spayed' is an apt characterization. Not even the worst puppy mill would breed a b*tch 9 times.
I don't know why they haven't produced the signed written consent either. All we can do is speculate at this point.
I work in a hospital, and to say that never should anything as important as a signed written consent be misplaced is of course the ideal. Reality is, accidents do happen. Paperwork gets misfiled. We scan and computerize all of our medical records, and the software is not exactly user-friendly. It could just be that it was scanned into the system but entered into the wrong database. That can very easily happen.
You have no problem assigning blame and making disparaging remarks with regards to the doctor and/or hospital yet get all up in arms when we sound off our opinions of this sorry excuse for a parent. Back to my point, everything at this point in time is speculation. You have no idea yet if this doctor did in fact perform any surgical procedure without consent yet or not. I do not condone surgical procedures without informed written consent. I do think that those who work in hospitals overwhelmingly try their best to meet the needs of the patients. I do think that mistakes are inevitable. And based on what little information I do know about this woman, I do think she needs to be b-slapped. CPS should also be looking into this case to make sure the children are at least adequately cared for.
Unfortunately for the doctors, nurses, and hospital, it is not speculation at this point that they cannot produce a signed consent form. The hospital responded to a medical records request made by a previous attorney for the woman, and her present attorney, Max Borten, released that information/letter to the Boston Herald, which said that after a CAREFUL search they have been unable to find a signed consent form. So, until and unless they can FIND the consent form, that means they don't have one. I would guess there will be lots of "discovery" about that issue.
See Post #70 in re the woman's attorney Max Borten.
"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.’ â€
The signed letter was sent by Baystate to one of Savicki’s previous attorneys, Borten said.
Baystate spokeswoman Jane Albert confirmed that the document was signed and sent by an employee in the Health Information Management System department. She declined to comment on it."
You said: "Back to my point, everything at this point in time is speculation. You have no idea yet if this doctor did in fact perform any surgical procedure without consent yet or not."
My "speculation" is backed up by a letter from the hospital stating IN WRITING that they cannot locate a signed written consent form authorizing the doctors to perform the surgery they performed. That's factual. That's not speculation. They do not have in their possession at this time a signed written consent form. So that's where we stand. And that's WHY a lawsuit has been filed. It is also a fact (which we know) that the doctor did perform a sterilization procedure on the woman. That is a fact. So it seems to me that the attorney must have had at least adequate cause of action in order for the lawsuit to still be in court. That means there must be a question of fact to be determined. And maybe in the end a jury will decide the questions of fact.
This is not "personal" about doctors. I'm sure everyone would be outraged if an innocent person were executed by any state because that person had an incompetent lawyer........
Again, mistakes in the medical profession are COSTLY in terms of physical harm and even death to patients.......that's why you guys are held to a higher standard and why medical malpractice insurance is soooooo EXPENSIVE.
Someone needs to counsel her on the harms of bringing children into a home with such impoverished status.
Appearantly, she does not care & I've known about people who, in the early 1980's, purposely had a lot of kids just to increase the amount of welfare benefits that they receive every month.
The Clinton Administration actually caught on to these acts & strickened the welfare policies in many states around 1996 . 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act - SourceWatch
Maybe if the government in her state caught on to her acts, they'll do like the other states & have her participate in the welfare to work program once her child is old enough for daycare.
If she has nine kids already, than most states cut the benefits after the fifth child is born.
Some people here are acting as though involuntary sterilization is the only way to prevent this woman from continuing to having children that she cannot provide for. If this woman did not consent to having this procedure, I don't care if this woman had 20 children, this procedure never should have been done. The doctor had no right to make such a decision for this her.
If people are truly concerned for her children, call Child Protective Services and get them involved. That doctor stepped way over the line.
I agree this woman should NOT have been sterilized without her consent but I would like to get the doctors side of the story. There has to be more.
This story is EXACTLY why there needs to be a limit on the money per child received by parents on welfare. If she really wants 9 rugrats she should be able to pay for all 9 herself (or at least the last 7).
It sounds like the doc/hosp effed up and now she will most likely be able to remain a stay at home mom the rest of her life. I imagine there would be a pretty hefty settlement if there was a mistake.
People should have greater goals in life than pumping out as many children as their body will allow.
I don't have much sympathy either and I'm glad it happened. I only hope she doesn't walk away with too much $$ because I'm fairly certain that's her goal here.
It obvious that this particular woman doesn't understand a LOT of things.....
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
The original story says she took an IUD with her the birth and asked the doc to place it. You can't do that immediately after giving birth. It just doesn't make sense.
I find that highly suspect. Do doctors REALLY give a patient that IUD so they can bring it with them to the operating room? Sounds REALLY fishy. Wouldn't that breach some sort of sanitation rules? Even if it is in a container (sealed) would you let some random person bring it with them? Especially when grimy hands could make it dangerous to put inside someones body?
Having as many children as you want is one thing if you can pay for their delivery, care and upbringing but that is hardly the case here. She keeps having children whose daddies are likely not contributing much if anything to their care and so she expects the taxpayers to foot the bill. (Too bad "Octomom" didn't go there for her last "delivery," she might be out of the baby business too.) Pretty nervy of this lady to try and defend her right to have as many babies as she feels like when she isn't paying the costs. I wonder how she even came to realize that she had been permanently "spayed?"
Cute. And IGNORANT.
The issue here is a licensed physician either wilfully chose to sterilize this woman, based on his/her own perception of what was best for her and society, OR he/she MADE A MISTAKE..........which is a problem. Surgical mistakes are serious problems.
How would you like to go into the hospital for a kidney problem and receive a heart transplant? Would that be justified because you are probably old and need a new heart anyway?
Why can't you people separate your emotions about a set of circumstances from the facts? That woman, in this country, has the right to decide whether or not she wants to be sterilized.......NO DOCTOR has the right to make that decision for her. And if a doctor does make that decision, then that doctor is in trouble legally. Period. That's it. If doctor "mistakes" were so acceptable in our society, then my guess is that medical malpractice insurance would not be so expensive because juries would not give out big awards for losses suffered by patients who would physically injured by such mistakes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
