Does anyone know of an actual lawsuit against a doctor after sterilization?
Posted by kman
I did a short search and couldn't find anything about a woman changing her mind after a tubal suing but I did find this little gem during my search. I know that this wasn't right of the doc and staff to do, either on purpose or accidentally but I think in this case they deserve an award. She is an idiot and her rampant breeding needed to be stopped now. Note that she has 9 already, 1 with her current fiance is aww-tistic and her "fiance" would like to try for another boy.
A Massachusetts mother with nine children who had asked a hospital for post-delivery birth control was sterilized instead without her consent, according to a lawsuit against the Springfield hospital and several doctors and nurses. Sounds horrible but read further
Tessa Savicki, 35, claimed that doctors at Baystate Medical Center had agreed to insert an intrauterine device, or IUD, that she brought to the operating room, but instead performed a tubal ligation that effectively ended her chances of having more children. Who the hell hauls an IUD they brought from home to the OR. Gross. No way it is sterile.
"They've done something. They cannot correct this," she told ABCNews.com. "You think you're safe at the hospital. You're not." But we are now safe from your baby factory producing any more children that you can't take care of.
Savicki's attorney, Dr. Max Borten of Waltham, Mass., a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, said his client was devastated when she found out about the tubal ligation shortly after a December 2006 Cesarean section. I was devastated when I found out that this moron already had 8 kids before the last one.
Awake with only spinal anesthesia, Saviciki "realized that when she was still on the table," he said.
Tessa Savicki
Courtesy Boston Herald/Christopher Evans
Tessa Savicki holds her 2-year-old son Manuel... View Full Caption
Tessa Savicki holds her 2-year-old son Manuel Flores with her older children, Julian Torres,-Lebron, 17, left, Destiny Tirado, 8, and Jassalyn Tirado, 3, right, at her Springfield home on Thursday, December 17, 2009. Close
Savicki's children range in age from 3 to 21 and she is a grandmother of one with another grandchild on the way. She had her first child, a boy, at age 13 after being raped, she told ABC News.
Getting back on her feet after a rough start -- two of her children are on welfare and she is unemployed -- Savicki said she's working toward her GED. Wow, she's quite an overachiever. As apparently are the next generation of breeding brats.
Her three youngest children are with her fiance, Angel Tirado, who she said was hoping for one more baby. Their youngest, Manuel, was recently diagnosed with autism. Oh goody, a fiance and an autistic kid. So sad she can't pass on more of her defective genes.
"He was talking about trying for another boy," she said. I was talking about winning 50 million from the lottery the other day. It didn't happen. I got over it. I suggest he do the same.
She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation. If you can't afford to adopt you can't afford to breed either.
Borten said the chances of Savicki being able to become pregnant again, even if an attempt to reverse the procedure was performed, would be slim.
"The issue here is a little broader and more involved than what people think," Borten said, noting how sterilizations have been used throughout history to control populations deemed unsavory. "The issue is, who has the right to permanently sterilize a woman? Or a man?" The taxpayers who keep having to pony up breeder welfare queen spawn?
Savicki said she believes the doctors intentionally sterilized her without her consent. "I honestly think they thought I had enough," she said. The were right.
Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health, declined to comment on the lawsuit or Savicki's own medical care, citing federal privacy regulations.
But speaking in general terms, it is "absolutely not" normal procedure for a woman to carry her own IUD into the operating room, Albert said.
"It is not our practice for a patient, it is not our practice to insert an IUD into a woman who has just had a C-section," Albert said.
Hospital Confirms No Consent Record Found for Mother's Tubal Ligation
According to the complaint, filed Nov. 24 in Hampden Superior Court, Savicki had agreed prior to a scheduled Cesarean section that her doctors would implant the IUD into her uterus at the end of the procedure. Instead, her tubes were tied after the birth of her ninth child.
It's a procedure, according to the lawsuit, that requires written consent of the women 30 days prior if the patient's medical expenses are covered by the state, as Savicki's were. Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records.
A Massachusetts mother with nine children who had asked a hospital for post-delivery birth control was sterilized instead without her consent, according to a lawsuit against the Springfield hospital and several doctors and nurses. Sounds horrible but read further
Tessa Savicki, 35, claimed that doctors at Baystate Medical Center had agreed to insert an intrauterine device, or IUD, that she brought to the operating room, but instead performed a tubal ligation that effectively ended her chances of having more children. Who the hell hauls an IUD they brought from home to the OR. Gross. No way it is sterile.
"They've done something. They cannot correct this," she told ABCNews.com. "You think you're safe at the hospital. You're not." But we are now safe from your baby factory producing any more children that you can't take care of.
Savicki's attorney, Dr. Max Borten of Waltham, Mass., a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, said his client was devastated when she found out about the tubal ligation shortly after a December 2006 Cesarean section. I was devastated when I found out that this moron already had 8 kids before the last one.
Awake with only spinal anesthesia, Saviciki "realized that when she was still on the table," he said.
Tessa Savicki
Courtesy Boston Herald/Christopher Evans
Tessa Savicki holds her 2-year-old son Manuel... View Full Caption
Tessa Savicki holds her 2-year-old son Manuel Flores with her older children, Julian Torres,-Lebron, 17, left, Destiny Tirado, 8, and Jassalyn Tirado, 3, right, at her Springfield home on Thursday, December 17, 2009. Close
Savicki's children range in age from 3 to 21 and she is a grandmother of one with another grandchild on the way. She had her first child, a boy, at age 13 after being raped, she told ABC News.
Getting back on her feet after a rough start -- two of her children are on welfare and she is unemployed -- Savicki said she's working toward her GED. Wow, she's quite an overachiever. As apparently are the next generation of breeding brats.
Her three youngest children are with her fiance, Angel Tirado, who she said was hoping for one more baby. Their youngest, Manuel, was recently diagnosed with autism. Oh goody, a fiance and an autistic kid. So sad she can't pass on more of her defective genes.
"He was talking about trying for another boy," she said. I was talking about winning 50 million from the lottery the other day. It didn't happen. I got over it. I suggest he do the same.
She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation. If you can't afford to adopt you can't afford to breed either.
Borten said the chances of Savicki being able to become pregnant again, even if an attempt to reverse the procedure was performed, would be slim.
"The issue here is a little broader and more involved than what people think," Borten said, noting how sterilizations have been used throughout history to control populations deemed unsavory. "The issue is, who has the right to permanently sterilize a woman? Or a man?" The taxpayers who keep having to pony up breeder welfare queen spawn?
Savicki said she believes the doctors intentionally sterilized her without her consent. "I honestly think they thought I had enough," she said. The were right.
Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health, declined to comment on the lawsuit or Savicki's own medical care, citing federal privacy regulations.
But speaking in general terms, it is "absolutely not" normal procedure for a woman to carry her own IUD into the operating room, Albert said.
"It is not our practice for a patient, it is not our practice to insert an IUD into a woman who has just had a C-section," Albert said.
Hospital Confirms No Consent Record Found for Mother's Tubal Ligation
According to the complaint, filed Nov. 24 in Hampden Superior Court, Savicki had agreed prior to a scheduled Cesarean section that her doctors would implant the IUD into her uterus at the end of the procedure. Instead, her tubes were tied after the birth of her ninth child.
It's a procedure, according to the lawsuit, that requires written consent of the women 30 days prior if the patient's medical expenses are covered by the state, as Savicki's were. Neither the consent form nor an accompanying "physician's statement" to be filled out by the doctor were found in Savicki's medical records.
Quote
paragon schnitzophonic
I'm sorry, but when you don't even have a high school diploma, just gave birth to your NINTH child, have two children on welfare, one child is mentally retarded, and your children are already having children (and I highly doubt they're in a position to have kids, thus continuing the cycle of poverty), then you lose the right to "try for a boy." You can't take care of the nine you have; I'm not going to have any sympathy for the doctors ensuring you can't have any more. But hell, the payout from the lawsuit might help your dumb ass out more than having a tenth child would (if there's anything left over from attorney and court fees).
The first kid is not her fault; she gets a pass on that one since she didn't make the choice for sexual contact. But she had a choice for each and every other kid. She could have avoided further pregnancies until she was on her own two feet and could care for more children.
I love it when people in articles like this start bringing up the past of forced sterilizations of black people and the poor. That shit was wrong in the past, but that doesn't mean that it should be entirely avoided. Uneducated people with 5+ children who rely on welfare for their everyday lives and are unemployed and the drug addicts and abusive parents that already had a set of children permanently taken away should be forcibly sterilized. Again, having children is not a fucking right that should be protected no matter what.
Exactly!
winkCompulsory sterilization back in the 40's or whenever because of someone's race, perceived "feeble mindedness", or poverty level is NOT the same thing as mandatory sterilization for Moos who have shat half a dozen loaves, have had them removed by CPS for neglect or abuse, and/or who are addicts and drunks churning out tards because of it. Two completely different horses of a major different color. Mandatory sterilization should be based on willy nilly loaf shitting when they can't afford it, continue to live off welfare, and/or are dropping little tards due to their addictions and/or dangerous lifestyles. If it's TRULY "all about what's best for the chyllldren", then I fail to see the problem. At the very least there should be mandatory birth control like IUD's or shots.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
Take those doctors up infront of the governor and give them a fucken MEDAL!! 
hankyou
hankyouSorry, only registered users may post in this forum.