What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

If she was in the hospital in the first place, the operating room could have been prepped faster. The staff would have been ready for her.

You take these risks when you attempt home birth. Why would anyone want to do a home birth?!?!?

Sorry. No. Her midwife was responsible and sent her to the hospital the minute the birth was no longer a safe. If you arrive in an ambulance, the hospital needs to be able offer you care, otherwise what’s the point?

I’ve had all my children in a hospital (as planned) and I think if they couldn’t offer emergency care including emergency C-section surgery they gave no business calling themselves a level 1 trauma center.

BTW even if you plan to give birth in a hospital a very uncomplicated natural birth can turn into an emergency very quickly. I would be very upset if the hospital made me wait 2 hours for an emergency C-section.

The hospital is saying that, when she arrived, it didn't seem emergent. And that the birth injury had already occurred before she arrived at the hospital.

Whether she had waited 5 minutes or 2 hours for the c-section, the hospital is saying it would not have mattered. The first trial did not address the question. The second trial may.

The hospital probably monitored her from the get go and never saw any issues with the heart rate, fetal movement, etc and nothing unusual happened during the c-section birth. Since the baby did not appear to be in any distress once they arrived at the hospital, whatever happened must have happened before they arrived at the hospital. Given that something sent them to the hospital in the first place - whatever happened must have happened at home and it must have been worrisome enough for the midwife to send the mother to the hospital. By the time the mother got to the hospital whatever had gone wrong had resolved itself and the baby was no longer in distress. Had the mother been at the hospital when the baby went into to distress an emergency c-section would have been performed in time to save the baby injury. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

If she was in the hospital in the first place, the operating room could have been prepped faster. The staff would have been ready for her.

You take these risks when you attempt home birth. Why would anyone want to do a home birth?!?!?

Sorry. No. Her midwife was responsible and sent her to the hospital the minute the birth was no longer a safe. If you arrive in an ambulance, the hospital needs to be able offer you care, otherwise what’s the point?

I’ve had all my children in a hospital (as planned) and I think if they couldn’t offer emergency care including emergency C-section surgery they gave no business calling themselves a level 1 trauma center.

BTW even if you plan to give birth in a hospital a very uncomplicated natural birth can turn into an emergency very quickly. I would be very upset if the hospital made me wait 2 hours for an emergency C-section.

The hospital is saying that, when she arrived, it didn't seem emergent. And that the birth injury had already occurred before she arrived at the hospital.

Whether she had waited 5 minutes or 2 hours for the c-section, the hospital is saying it would not have mattered. The first trial did not address the question. The second trial may.

The hospital probably monitored her from the get go and never saw any issues with the heart rate, fetal movement, etc and nothing unusual happened during the c-section birth. Since the baby did not appear to be in any distress once they arrived at the hospital, whatever happened must have happened before they arrived at the hospital. Given that something sent them to the hospital in the first place - whatever happened must have happened at home and it must have been worrisome enough for the midwife to send the mother to the hospital. By the time the mother got to the hospital whatever had gone wrong had resolved itself and the baby was no longer in distress. Had the mother been at the hospital when the baby went into to distress an emergency c-section would have been performed in time to save the baby injury. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

See complaint #2:
http://167.102.241.39/verification/%2Fpublicorders%2Fmuhlhan_evelyn-r060032-amdss.order-20120613.pdf

[Anonymous]

Reading over that report is horrifying.

This couples first home birth (which was contraindicated from the beginning as too dangerous due to the mother’s medical history) almost killed their child and yet they did it again.

The midwife was completely incompetent and did so many things wrong during the course of this ignorant woman’s labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading over that report is horrifying.

This couples first home birth (which was contraindicated from the beginning as too dangerous due to the mother’s medical history) almost killed their child and yet they did it again.

The midwife was completely incompetent and did so many things wrong during the course of this ignorant woman’s labor.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

If she was in the hospital in the first place, the operating room could have been prepped faster. The staff would have been ready for her.

You take these risks when you attempt home birth. Why would anyone want to do a home birth?!?!?

Sorry. No. Her midwife was responsible and sent her to the hospital the minute the birth was no longer a safe. If you arrive in an ambulance, the hospital needs to be able offer you care, otherwise what’s the point?

I’ve had all my children in a hospital (as planned) and I think if they couldn’t offer emergency care including emergency C-section surgery they gave no business calling themselves a level 1 trauma center.

BTW even if you plan to give birth in a hospital a very uncomplicated natural birth can turn into an emergency very quickly. I would be very upset if the hospital made me wait 2 hours for an emergency C-section.

The midwife had multiple complaints filed against her and the mom was high risk and should not have been having a home birth. There’s a reason the hospital was successful on appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

I don't know enough about the case to weigh in, but I agree that these things are separate. Obviously. You don't give up your rights to be treated when you go to a hospital because you didn't have a hospital birth. Whether or not you THINK someone should...it doesn't work that way. An emergency is an emergency.

Agree -- we don't have enough details to know whether JHU was at fault and they certainly aren't going to release those details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

If she was in the hospital in the first place, the operating room could have been prepped faster. The staff would have been ready for her.

You take these risks when you attempt home birth. Why would anyone want to do a home birth?!?!?

Remind me to make sure to have my car accident or heart attack at a hospital next time; after all, if they wait to treat me, it's my fault for not being there in the first place.

It is people who post dumb sh*t like this... I've worked at the Johns Hopkins ER before and like most ER's, patient are prioritized based on severity of illness. ALL OBGYN cases go straight to OBGYN past 12 weeks gestation, that's just protocol. So your theory is hogwash. If a car accident is brought in, the ER has trauma bays waiting and ready to asses your needs, ahead of the 80-100 people on average waiting in the waiting room. People who don't work in healthcare are always the first to think they know, when they don't. If you want to blame anyone for long wait times, go down to the ER and blame all the people who go their instead of primary care or urgent care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

I don't know enough about the case to weigh in, but I agree that these things are separate. Obviously. You don't give up your rights to be treated when you go to a hospital because you didn't have a hospital birth. Whether or not you THINK someone should...it doesn't work that way. An emergency is an emergency.

Agree -- we don't have enough details to know whether JHU was at fault and they certainly aren't going to release those details.

What? The “details” of what happened at JHU came out in the trial. What was omitted were the “details” of what happened before then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the home birth have to do with the hospital waiting 2 hrs to give her the c-section? Two totally different things.

If she was in the hospital in the first place, the operating room could have been prepped faster. The staff would have been ready for her.

You take these risks when you attempt home birth. Why would anyone want to do a home birth?!?!?

Sorry. No. Her midwife was responsible and sent her to the hospital the minute the birth was no longer a safe. If you arrive in an ambulance, the hospital needs to be able offer you care, otherwise what’s the point?

I’ve had all my children in a hospital (as planned) and I think if they couldn’t offer emergency care including emergency C-section surgery they gave no business calling themselves a level 1 trauma center.

BTW even if you plan to give birth in a hospital a very uncomplicated natural birth can turn into an emergency very quickly. I would be very upset if the hospital made me wait 2 hours for an emergency C-section.

The hospital is saying that, when she arrived, it didn't seem emergent. And that the birth injury had already occurred before she arrived at the hospital.

Whether she had waited 5 minutes or 2 hours for the c-section, the hospital is saying it would not have mattered. The first trial did not address the question. The second trial may.

The hospital probably monitored her from the get go and never saw any issues with the heart rate, fetal movement, etc and nothing unusual happened during the c-section birth. Since the baby did not appear to be in any distress once they arrived at the hospital, whatever happened must have happened before they arrived at the hospital. Given that something sent them to the hospital in the first place - whatever happened must have happened at home and it must have been worrisome enough for the midwife to send the mother to the hospital. By the time the mother got to the hospital whatever had gone wrong had resolved itself and the baby was no longer in distress. Had the mother been at the hospital when the baby went into to distress an emergency c-section would have been performed in time to save the baby injury. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

See complaint #2:
http://167.102.241.39/verification/%2Fpublicorders%2Fmuhlhan_evelyn-r060032-amdss.order-20120613.pdf

Well the midwife and the parents are complete idiots. That poor baby . Is the midwife facing criminal charges? Are the parents?

[Anonymous]

I'm having a hard time figuring out which patient the report is talking about.

Is she the one who arrived at the hospital fully dilated and not progressing after pushing for hours? If so, I don't understand why they didn't do an immediate c-section even though I doubt that it would have helped the baby. That baby was injured during the home birth, there isn't much doubt about that. I guess the question is, did the hospital compound the injury by not doing the c-section right away? I would need to understand the medical reasoning for them not doing that. Was the patient refusing the c-section? What was going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time figuring out which patient the report is talking about.

Is she the one who arrived at the hospital fully dilated and not progressing after pushing for hours? If so, I don't understand why they didn't do an immediate c-section even though I doubt that it would have helped the baby. That baby was injured during the home birth, there isn't much doubt about that. I guess the question is, did the hospital compound the injury by not doing the c-section right away? I would need to understand the medical reasoning for them not doing that. Was the patient refusing the c-section? What was going on?

In the nurse license suspension certification, it is Complaint #2 and Patient B and Baby B.

That is the question, yes. And the hospital is saying that a c-section right away would not have helped Baby B. From what I know of birth injuries, I don't disagree with them, but I'm not an expert or a doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time figuring out which patient the report is talking about.

Is she the one who arrived at the hospital fully dilated and not progressing after pushing for hours? If so, I don't understand why they didn't do an immediate c-section even though I doubt that it would have helped the baby. That baby was injured during the home birth, there isn't much doubt about that. I guess the question is, did the hospital compound the injury by not doing the c-section right away? I would need to understand the medical reasoning for them not doing that. Was the patient refusing the c-section? What was going on?

In the nurse license suspension certification, it is Complaint #2 and Patient B and Baby B.

That is the question, yes. And the hospital is saying that a c-section right away would not have helped Baby B. From what I know of birth injuries, I don't disagree with them, but I'm not an expert or a doctor.

I think at that point the damage had been done to the baby, the baby's heart rate was stable when they arrived at the hospital. I pretty sure that there is a reason why c-sections become dangerous after a baby is crowning but I don't know what that reason is. Was the hospital trying to get the cervical swelling down so that the patient could continue to deliver the baby? I would imagine that the poor little guy's head was significantly smooshed by the midwife trying to squeeze him out of there. Doing an emergency c-section and forcibly pulling the baby's head back out of the birth canal could have risked further injury...

I think they were trying to get the swelling down so that delivery by c-section would be safer? I wish the hospital would explain the reasoning for the delay. It gives me the chills these parents and that midwife did what they did. Now they are blaming the good people who tried their best to not make things even worse for them.

[Anonymous]

I have no sympathy for her stupidity. The mother should be criminally charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why homebirthers want no medical intervention (hence doing it at home) but if the sh*t hits the fan, they expect the medical establishment to shoulder the responsibilty. They decided not to participate in modern medicine. I understand the history of obs v. midwives but it seems odd to me.

I'm not saying I agree with the amount of the settlement and I don't know enough about the particulars of the case, but seriously? This is just ridiculous reasoning.

They had an EMERGENCY and needed care!! The fact that they didn't start the birth in a hospital (which, BTW, is not against the law, or some experimental practice - you do realize babies are born outside of hospitals every day?) does not absolve the hospital of responsibility for adequate standard of care. So if I understand your reasoning, you are saying that once you choose to attempt a home birth you waive your rights to competent medical care??

It will probably be reduced on appeal, and perhaps it should be. However, to say choosing to have a baby at home negates your right to expect good medical care if needed is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

-signed, mother who gave birth in a hospital but still thinks people who arrive at the emergency room deserve good medical care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why homebirthers want no medical intervention (hence doing it at home) but if the sh*t hits the fan, they expect the medical establishment to shoulder the responsibilty. They decided not to participate in modern medicine. I understand the history of obs v. midwives but it seems odd to me.

I'm not saying I agree with the amount of the settlement and I don't know enough about the particulars of the case, but seriously? This is just ridiculous reasoning.

They had an EMERGENCY and needed care!! The fact that they didn't start the birth in a hospital (which, BTW, is not against the law, or some experimental practice - you do realize babies are born outside of hospitals every day?) does not absolve the hospital of responsibility for adequate standard of care. So if I understand your reasoning, you are saying that once you choose to attempt a home birth you waive your rights to competent medical care??

It will probably be reduced on appeal, and perhaps it should be. However, to say choosing to have a baby at home negates your right to expect good medical care if needed is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

-signed, mother who gave birth in a hospital but still thinks people who arrive at the emergency room deserve good medical care.

DP. I didn't read that post as saying that home birthers who transfer to a hospital shouldn't receive or expect good medical care (I've heard of doctors or hospitals sometimes mistreating home birthers and that's wrong). I read it as saying that, when a home birth goes wrong and they end up at a hospital with a birth injury, that they shouldn't then go on to sue the hospital for millions of dollars when the birth injury had already occurred prior to arriving at the hospital.

I've heard that nearly all births at a hospital with bad outcomes result in med-mal suits, whether the doctor was at fault or not. So this may just be that.