Dr Jen Gunter says the doctors at that Catholic hospital in Michigan should be sued along with the bishops.
This case happened at Mercy Health Partners,, a Catholic hospital in Muskegon, Mich. What makes it even worse is that Ms. Means is one of four women to suffer the same negligent care with ruptured membranes before viability at Mercy Health Partners who were denied adequate care. The cases were apparently discovered by a federally funded infant and fetal mortality project.
…
While there is a lot of press over this legal tactic, we must not lose sight of a crucial fact. If the events as reported are supported by the medical record Ms. Means was the victim of medical malpractice.
It is standard to care to offer termination at 18 weeks with grossly ruptured membranes. This is because the risk of infection is 30-40% just walking in the door with ruptured membranes at 18 weeks (meaning 30-40% of the time membranes ruptured because of an infection). If an infection isn’t there initially, it almost always develops. This is because once the membranes ruptured there is no barrier preventing the vaginal bacteria from ascending into the uterus. Regardless of gestational age. Regardless of viability. This kind of infections kills women. One needs to look no further than the Savita tragedy for a terrible reminder. And so, because the risks are very great, it is standard of care to include the discussion of termination at 18 weeks with ruptured membranes.
This kind of infection kills women. Let’s not stand idly by and let Catholic bishops order hospitals to let infections kill women. Let’s not stand idly by and let hospitals obey the orders of bishops instead of providing the standard of care. Let’s not just loll around watching reality tv while Catholic hospitals let religious dogma trump medical knowledge.
There may be a tactical reason not to sue the doctors or the hospital, or if so, to make that a separate case. The lawsuit against USCCB et al is at pains to point out that they are not healthcare providers under Michigan state law, so there may be procedural or other differences in how such a case would have to have been brought.
Isn’t this kind of thing the reason we have professional boards like the AMA? Lawsuit against the doctors or no, they should still lose their license to practice medicine.
There may be a tactical reason not to sue the doctors or the hospital…
That could be to highlight the fact that the malpractice in question resulted from a USCCB directive, which overrode both the doctors’ judgement and the hsopital’s normal procedures. I’m sure a case could be made that the doctors and hospital staff were perfectly competent, and would have done the right thing had they not been overruled by people who had the power to fire them. And it would make political and PR sense not to sue the doctors, because they’re not the enemy — they’re potential allies, and our side needs allies.
This is why religious groups should be forbidden to run hospitals.
@2-The AMA is not a licensing board. It is a professional advocacy organization for doctors and the strongest disciplinary action it could take against a member physician would be to kick them out. And I think (though the # could be off) only about a third of US physicians are members anyway. Licensure is done by state medical boards. A complaint could be made to the Michigan medical board (and may have been), but unfortunately many state medical boards are reluctant to take action against doctors despite really egregious misbehavior.
for examples, see Orac’s blog. This post focuses on Texas but similar problems are typical:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/
The information about four other women subjected to similar negligent care comes from that public health educator. Dr Jen’s source: link
As far as I can tell that info comes from the lawsuit itself. WaPo has a copy of it:
WaPo article
PDF link to complaint filing
Hey, there’s also now a Beatriz lawsuit: Salon link
and more at RHR: