Anonymous
12/04/2019 15:38
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous
12/04/2019 15:36
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Truthfully the hospital could have moved faster to get her to the OR. However, it is likely that much brain damage occurred before coming to the hospital. Second if the unlicensed incompetent nurse midwife had had insurance, most of the liability would have been on her. I’m surprised they didn’t try to sue their own homeowners insurance.
Fifty five million is way too much.
Fifty five million is way too much.
Anonymous
12/04/2019 15:27
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
So, what happened to the Appeal?
https://www.belsky-weinberg-horowitz.com/in-lawsuit-over-birth-injuries-evidence-alleging-midwifes-negligence-should-have-been-allowed/
Looks this was returned to a new trial. But I don't see the outcome of that new trial.
https://www.belsky-weinberg-horowitz.com/in-lawsuit-over-birth-injuries-evidence-alleging-midwifes-negligence-should-have-been-allowed/
Looks this was returned to a new trial. But I don't see the outcome of that new trial.
Anonymous
12/04/2019 15:08
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
It seems the family also has a need to confirm their bias. It must be very difficult to bring home a baby with severe brain damage. I am sure it would just be devastating to even begin for them to fathom that it could be the choice they made, so they don't. They double down on their original bias of home over the hospital. If they can guilt the hospital, they don't have to feel guilt themselves.
Anonymous
07/02/2012 19:34
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:Hospitals sometimes punish women who are homebirth transfers. It's possible that this is what was happening in this case, which is why the jury awarded so much money. Typically if a woman (who as not intending to deliver at home) arrives at the hospital in an emergency situation, the hospital is able to perform a stat c/s. These things happen - a woman who had no prenatal care, a woman who has a premature baby delivering precipitously, etc, who are found to be in an emergency situation.
If you were birthing in the hospital, and it was decided that you needed a stat c/s, and they then took 2 hours to get you into the OR - wouldn't you be suing?
By the way, this midwife was licensed and 100% legal. She had labs, medical records and labor history immediately available. The severity of the situation can easily be relayed during the ambulance transfer. My guess is that there were egotistical doctors who either refused to listen, or who purposely tried to teach the midwife and/or parents a lesson. Thus the huge award.
For the doctors or other medical professionals who posted on this thread -- you come across as completely uneducated and ignorant. Have you never bothered to learn anything about homebirth? For starters, it is proven to be as safe as hospital birth. And, it is completely legal, and the midwives have extensive medical training.
How do you know so much about this case? Where did you get the information, "She had labs, medical records and labor history immediately available. The severity of the situation can easily be relayed during the ambulance transfer." You seem to be the only one here extensively defending the Plaintiff, forget that any evidence/negligence regarding the midwife was completely left out to the jury, and that Plaintiff's ultimate negligence led to the child's injury, not of the hospital. Perhaps you are closely related to the Plaintiff or the case??
Anonymous
07/02/2012 16:41
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
16:27 again
To those who think it's fine to sue if you do the birth your way and then things go wrong when you can't get medical care in time....Here's the bottom line, if you sue you are putting another nail in the coffin of OBGYN.
Who is going to deliver your grandchildren? OBs are leaving the profession or going just GYN and few med students want to be OBs. There are cases where a lawsuit is reasonable, but in many cases people do what they want, against the advice of many physicians, and they claim to understand the risks...until it affects them. They act self-richeous about their choices as though home birth, birthing center or VBac or what have you is the better and more educated way to do things and they defend it as the best choice until things go wrong and we all pay the consequences of more expensive health care.
You can tell me homebirth is safer than hospital birth if you like or birthing centers are better or whatever. but if you chose these alternative methods you also need to assume you will not get medical care as fast as those in the hospital.
To those who think it's fine to sue if you do the birth your way and then things go wrong when you can't get medical care in time....Here's the bottom line, if you sue you are putting another nail in the coffin of OBGYN.
Who is going to deliver your grandchildren? OBs are leaving the profession or going just GYN and few med students want to be OBs. There are cases where a lawsuit is reasonable, but in many cases people do what they want, against the advice of many physicians, and they claim to understand the risks...until it affects them. They act self-richeous about their choices as though home birth, birthing center or VBac or what have you is the better and more educated way to do things and they defend it as the best choice until things go wrong and we all pay the consequences of more expensive health care.
You can tell me homebirth is safer than hospital birth if you like or birthing centers are better or whatever. but if you chose these alternative methods you also need to assume you will not get medical care as fast as those in the hospital.
Anonymous
07/02/2012 16:27
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Haven't read all the posts. I think it's insane. The amount is horrifying. They chose to have a home birth. People have strong opinions about how they want to do it and they shop and shop for a doctor who will do it. Some people insist on VBAC, others home birth, others midwife birthing center. Then, things don't go as planned and they sue. NOBODY wants to be an OB anymore and can you blame them? They have high malpractice insurance costs and they become scapegoats or the hospital becomes the scapegoat.
Do hospitals make mistakes? Absolutely! I do think there are cases where it is justified to sue, but you take risks doing things "your way" instead of the physician recommended way and at least have the integrity to own up to it instead of making an incredible hospita like Hopkins suffer.
Do hospitals make mistakes? Absolutely! I do think there are cases where it is justified to sue, but you take risks doing things "your way" instead of the physician recommended way and at least have the integrity to own up to it instead of making an incredible hospita like Hopkins suffer.
Anonymous
07/02/2012 16:14
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:Any evidence regarding the Midwife was precluded by the Woman's attorney, even before the trial began! So the jury never heard what happened at home. The Midwife is a quack who lost her license due to 5 birth disasters including death of a child. From what I read, the midwife injected all kinds of things including pitocin to escalate involuntary contraction, which she is not supposed to/she should not have. The woman is also negligent to jeopardize her child's safety by leaving it to the hands of such incompetent, with no medical equipment, at home, when there is such modern medical facilities around. Had she gone to doctor's regularly, the hospital would have all medical records and such emergency would not arise. Yet, the woman, explicitly claims, she has no guilt and assumes no responsibility for what happened. The fault/negligence is 3 fold, if any. Primarily the woman, the midwife, and yeah maybe the hospital could've performed a little faster. But the truth of the matter is, the hospital, ultimately saved the child's life, who could have otherwise DIED! And to sue the hospital just b/c the woman needs more money to raise the child is very wrong. 55 million is not 5 million. It is a disgusting amount of tax payer's money. Such award will not deter future law suits; it will encourage people to try home birth with midwives, and hey, if anything goes wrong, just go to the biggest hospital nearby for a great chance to win the lottery!
I think the mental state of her child speaks even more loudly than the money. This is the type of situation that prompts most of us to deliver in a hospital. To see that child at 2 years old with barely any development...
Anonymous
07/02/2012 15:59
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Any evidence regarding the Midwife was precluded by the Woman's attorney, even before the trial began! So the jury never heard what happened at home. The Midwife is a quack who lost her license due to 5 birth disasters including death of a child. From what I read, the midwife injected all kinds of things including pitocin to escalate involuntary contraction, which she is not supposed to/she should not have. The woman is also negligent to jeopardize her child's safety by leaving it to the hands of such incompetent, with no medical equipment, at home, when there is such modern medical facilities around. Had she gone to doctor's regularly, the hospital would have all medical records and such emergency would not arise. Yet, the woman, explicitly claims, she has no guilt and assumes no responsibility for what happened. The fault/negligence is 3 fold, if any. Primarily the woman, the midwife, and yeah maybe the hospital could've performed a little faster. But the truth of the matter is, the hospital, ultimately saved the child's life, who could have otherwise DIED! And to sue the hospital just b/c the woman needs more money to raise the child is very wrong. 55 million is not 5 million. It is a disgusting amount of tax payer's money. Such award will not deter future law suits; it will encourage people to try home birth with midwives, and hey, if anything goes wrong, just go to the biggest hospital nearby for a great chance to win the lottery!
Anonymous
06/30/2012 22:38
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 people who birth at home claim to understand the risks, but then sue as soon as they fall on the wrong side of the stats.
I'm all for people taking charge of their health and making informed decisions, but why sue when a known risk happens? Surely, she had to have understood there are significant risks in a twin home birth.
I've had natural births....in a hospital. It's not as bad as militant home birth advocates make it out to be.
If it weren't for those natural birth advocates, you wouldn't have had the option of a natural birth in a hospital.
I for one am thankful for all they've done to improve care for birthing women in this country.
To me, there is a difference between home birth advocates and natural birth advocates, though natural birth advocacy would almost certainly be a necessary step in becoming militant about home birthing.
Anonymous
06/30/2012 19:46
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:But it was not an unassisted home birthAnonymous wrote:I am a doctor and have been in practice for 20 + years. This case is baffling.
I am trying to figure out what the parents were thinking when they decided to do a home birth. Did they think that if problems came up they would just rush off to the hospital and everything would be taken care of?
To me, anyone should know that the ambulance could get caught in traffic, or there could be a bad storm making roads impassible, or the darn phone does not work. I guess in those cases others would have been sued including the National Weather Service.
Why did they cut it so close? Even if she needed a c section, no one wants to do a rush and cut. Those are dangerous, more anesthetic complications, more infection, more technical mistakes, and so on. Are these the kinds of people who just think that some safety net is always going to open up for them after they take ridiculous chances with life?
I had the impression that most home birthers were willing to accept all of the potential problems, kind of leaving it all up to the almighty and so on.
This couple seems to be immature..
As a doctor you surely know more about home births than others.
Did you know that in some European countries a home birth is the recommended way
Only in some cases is a hospital birth recommended.
Yes, I am completely aware of that.
They have experienced midwives who have a low threshold for taking the woman to the hospital. In some cases, they do not recommend a home birth with the first pregnancy since the mother;s pelvis has not been tried.
There, the system is more in place to deal with failed vaginal births. However, they too have outcomes like this one, but you would never see such a settlement.
Anonymous
06/30/2012 18:13
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Why did they revoke her license? The midwife did everything right, right?
Anonymous
06/30/2012 18:03
Subject: Re:What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Hospitals sometimes punish women who are homebirth transfers. It's possible that this is what was happening in this case, which is why the jury awarded so much money. Typically if a woman (who as not intending to deliver at home) arrives at the hospital in an emergency situation, the hospital is able to perform a stat c/s. These things happen - a woman who had no prenatal care, a woman who has a premature baby delivering precipitously, etc, who are found to be in an emergency situation.
If you were birthing in the hospital, and it was decided that you needed a stat c/s, and they then took 2 hours to get you into the OR - wouldn't you be suing?
By the way, this midwife was licensed and 100% legal. She had labs, medical records and labor history immediately available. The severity of the situation can easily be relayed during the ambulance transfer. My guess is that there were egotistical doctors who either refused to listen, or who purposely tried to teach the midwife and/or parents a lesson. Thus the huge award.
For the doctors or other medical professionals who posted on this thread -- you come across as completely uneducated and ignorant. Have you never bothered to learn anything about homebirth? For starters, it is proven to be as safe as hospital birth. And, it is completely legal, and the midwives have extensive medical training.
If you were birthing in the hospital, and it was decided that you needed a stat c/s, and they then took 2 hours to get you into the OR - wouldn't you be suing?
By the way, this midwife was licensed and 100% legal. She had labs, medical records and labor history immediately available. The severity of the situation can easily be relayed during the ambulance transfer. My guess is that there were egotistical doctors who either refused to listen, or who purposely tried to teach the midwife and/or parents a lesson. Thus the huge award.
For the doctors or other medical professionals who posted on this thread -- you come across as completely uneducated and ignorant. Have you never bothered to learn anything about homebirth? For starters, it is proven to be as safe as hospital birth. And, it is completely legal, and the midwives have extensive medical training.
Anonymous
06/30/2012 16:52
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people who birth at home claim to understand the risks, but then sue as soon as they fall on the wrong side of the stats.
I'm all for people taking charge of their health and making informed decisions, but why sue when a known risk happens? Surely, she had to have understood there are significant risks in a twin home birth.
I've had natural births....in a hospital. It's not as bad as militant home birth advocates make it out to be.
If it weren't for those natural birth advocates, you wouldn't have had the option of a natural birth in a hospital.
I for one am thankful for all they've done to improve care for birthing women in this country.
Anonymous
06/30/2012 15:44
Subject: What do you think of the $55 million settlement in the Johns Hopkins malpractice case?
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people who birth at home claim to understand the risks, but then sue as soon as they fall on the wrong side of the stats.
I'm all for people taking charge of their health and making informed decisions, but why sue when a known risk happens? Surely, she had to have understood there are significant risks in a twin home birth.
I've had natural births....in a hospital. It's not as bad as militant home birth advocates make it out to be.
I agree. I did the whole Midwife thing/natural birth in the hospital. 12 or so hours into the ordeal I found myself in the same situation as this lady (or similar) with my baby getting stuck in the birth canal and head starting to swell. In a matter of minutes, the midwife had the on call ob of the group she belonged to come and check me. Within 30 minutes I was taken away for an emergency c-section. As litigious as this society is, I am surprised anyone would agree to deliver someone's baby at home.