Anonymous
Post 10/30/2024 13:15     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Childbirth is the most dangerous thing most women do in their lifetimes. Home birth is a stupid risk. That said, two hours isn’t an “emergency” response.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2024 12:20     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:an OR can be prepped in 10 minutes folks...


You also need an emergency OB and time for them to figure out what your problem is, that you can't deliver vaginally and determine that you need a C section. You can't just walk into an ER and demand a c section.
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2024 01:53     Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:This verdict will be reversed on appeal and these greedy parents will get nothing which is what they deserve


YEP
Anonymous
Post 10/30/2024 01:41     Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Do we know if the parents were paid or if the hospital’s appeal was successful?

Was the mother misguided in choosing a home birth? Possibly. It is not something I would personally be comfortable with. However, she waited over 2 hours *at* the hospital for an *emergency* C-section and should be compensated for the hospital’s failure to provide adequate medical care. $55 million is a crazy amount, but imo a minimum of $7-8 million is warranted here.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 17:28     Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I found this.

https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/johns-hopkins-hospital-hit-with-28m-verdict-over-birth-injuries.cfm


According to the hospital’s own monitoring, the birth injuries occurred after she had been in the hospital for almost an hour. This is terrible and horrifying.


That article is old (despite the date).
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 17:24     Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:I found this.

https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/johns-hopkins-hospital-hit-with-28m-verdict-over-birth-injuries.cfm


According to the hospital’s own monitoring, the birth injuries occurred after she had been in the hospital for almost an hour. This is terrible and horrifying.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 17:12     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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.


NP. I think what others might be trying to say (and I will say) is that there is a difference between good medical care and a miracle. These people (the parents and the MW) created an unnecessary emergency and then threw it to the hospital to figure out and fix. I get that emergency is in their name, and that the whole purpose is to address emergencies. But some people here (and on other things I have read) seem to expect that there would be an OB at the ambulance bay with a scalpel, ready to do a C-section as soon as they rolled up. Those are unreasonable expectations.

The whole thing reeks of the arrogance of the parents and the MW, who think they know better than the people who have been through medical school and a lot of training, and then get mad when those professionals can't fix the disaster they created. Other PPs are right that these situations are the reason docs aren't going into OB anymore.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 13:59     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Why do you assume that the doctors and hospital staff were “good people who tried their best”? Sounds like this is exactly what the jury examined and decided that they actually weren’t good or didn’t try their best. You have a lot of prejudice here. Home birth isn’t something I’d do personally, but giving birth in hospitals has almost resulted in tragedy for me because the doctors weren’t good or didn’t do their best. It happens. Really.


I guess you didn't read the nursing license suspension document that was posted upthread. It was so sad.

Hospitals aren't perfect. Some are better than others and sometimes it is lawsuits that force hospitals to improve. But bad midwives are worse than bad hospitals. And this was a bad midwife.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 13:56     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Why do you assume that the doctors and hospital staff were “good people who tried their best”? Sounds like this is exactly what the jury examined and decided that they actually weren’t good or didn’t try their best. You have a lot of prejudice here. Home birth isn’t something I’d do personally, but giving birth in hospitals has almost resulted in tragedy for me because the doctors weren’t good or didn’t do their best. It happens. Really.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 11:38     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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.


But patient B and her baby did receive care at the hospital. Unfortunately there was no magical way to undo what had already been done to that baby. An immediate emergency c-section could have made things WORSE for both the baby and the mother. The hospital was treating two patients (mother and baby) and was trying their best to mitigate the risks and damages to both of their patients.

There wasn't going to be a happy ending to this story no matter what those doctors did. The damage was done at home and it was irreversible upon arrival at the ER. The best the hospital could do ws save their lives, which is what the hospital did. You understand that they both would have died had they not been transported to the hospital, right?

It's like breaking your leg jumping off a cliff and then blaming the ER doctors for your injuries.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 11:35     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 11:27     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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
Post 12/05/2019 11:12     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
I have no sympathy for her stupidity. The mother should be criminally charged.
Anonymous
Post 12/05/2019 11:09     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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
Post 12/05/2019 10:48     Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
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.