A mother in Oregon is suing Portland Adventist Medical Center for $8.6 million after she accidentally smothered her four-day-old baby in a hospital bed.
Monica Thompson says that, a few days after her son Jacob was born in August 2012, the hospital put her newborn in bed with her so she could breastfeed him. But Thompson says in the lawsuit that the baby was put there in the middle of the night, while she was heavily medicated. Thompson drifted off, and when she woke up, Jacob was unresponsive...
Thompson, who is suing both the hospital and the individual nurse involved in the incident, said she was still drowsy and groggy†from her medication when she realized her son was not moving, her lawsuit states. The suit says Thompson called for a nurse, and when none came, she carried her son to the hallway and frantically yelled for help.â€
That was my first thought as well. Mom kills baby, later blames nurse and sues because she needs cash. People are terrible like that.
Also, why are postpartum moms getting narcotics around the clock??? I get that labor is painful, but can people not tolerate pain anymore or something? Give mom some tylenol and a heating pad.
I was thinking the same thing. I had episiotomies with both kids and got Motrin. I survived. Again, narcotics being over used.
So sad, and so scary. During falls risk teaching in the NICU, I've had moms confess that with their earlier (non-NICU) babies that while on postpartum they had fallen asleep with baby in the bed or chair, dropped them on the floor, and never told anybody.
Unfortunately, in NICU I find that many parents get pretty ticked off if you tell them not to fall asleep holding baby, since there is too much risk that they'll a) fall and hit their head, or b) roll into a crevice and suffocate. Some parents get really argumentative when you actually enforce this policy, with the mindset of "I'm the parent, don't tell me when I'm allowed or not allowed to to hold my baby," or "You think you know better than I do whether I'm capable of holding right now?" It really puts the nurse between a rock and a hard place, since we have to balance safety with satisfaction scores.
Document, document, document. If u do the teaching and the parent refuses , it's on them, not the nurse.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
I was thinking the same thing. I had episiotomies with both kids and got Motrin. I survived. Again, narcotics being over used.
Have you ever heard the term NAPALM?
Not All People Are Like Me.
Some women do just fine with NSAIDS after delivery. Some women have excruciating involution pain, or 4th degree lacs. Or post-operative pain from major abdominal surgery.
Just because it wasn't bad for YOU does not mean that narcotics are not appropriate for others.
I had three lady partsl deliveries without so much as a whiff of pain medication with any of them. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I used that as a basis for saying women shouldn't HAVE to have an epidural or IV narcotics during labor?
I think this comes down to hospitals not having nurseries anymore and not allowing the mom to properly recover. We put the baby in the room at all times.
Back when I had my children, at night the baby went to the nursery and they fed them, unless I asked for them to stay with me. I was given ambien and pain meds and was told by the nurses, Oh honey, you need your rest. You will not be getting any sleep once you get home. Let us take the baby. And I did. Recovering from a csection is hard.
Now, you don't get any choice. Moms are told the baby is with you at all times, you feed it and do all the care. Never mind they may have just been through 36 hours of a hard labor and are completely exhausted. They may not be mentally all there to care for that baby right then. I feel that we should let mom's recover. Hospital stays are much shorter now and they can be sleep deprived soon enough.
What about in other countries where this is actually what women do? Have babies and take care of them? Where on earth did this princess mentality come from I the US? Yes, having kids is exhausting, painful, and not easy, but people have been doing it since the beginning of time. When did it become ok for every woman who has a kid to be heavily medicated and not have to feed their baby ever 1 to 3 hrs as necessary?
Some women do just fine with NSAIDS after delivery. Some women have excruciating involution pain, or 4th degree lacs. Or post-operative pain from major abdominal surgery.
Just because it wasn't bad for YOU does not mean that narcotics are not appropriate for others.
I had three lady partsl deliveries without so much as a whiff of pain medication with any of them. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I used that as a basis for saying women shouldn't HAVE to have an epidural or IV narcotics during labor?
Yes, I realize people are different. But correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have an issue in this country with opiods?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Yes, I realize people are different. But correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have an issue in this country with opiods?
I assume this is rhetorical? That doesn't negate the fact that there are times, such as for POST-SURGICAL PAIN, where narcotics are entirely appropriate.
I assume this is rhetorical? That doesn't negate the fact that there are times, such as for POST-SURGICAL PAIN, where narcotics are entirely appropriate.
I never stated it wasn't. However, insinuating that ALL WOMEN who have a child should be issued narcotics(as one poster did) or that ALL those that have paid should be offered such medication is worrisome. Unfortunately, it has come to be the mentality that everyone should be absolutely pain free at all times, and this isn't possible.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, PCVICU and peds oncology.
Money does make it on the list of reasons people sue, but only for actual losses and to pay future care costs.
After our son (my third C-section delivery via vertical incision) suffered several strokes as the result of what I call "medical misadventure" when he was five years old, we would have been very happy with an apology, even knowing that his survival meant a lifetime of sacrifices for all of us. Any money we might have obtained through a settlement with the physician and hospital would have made a huge difference to how all of our lives have proceeded.
Yes. Lawyers do take 40% of the settlement. This sounds awful until you realize that the lawyer makes nothing unless he wins the case. The lawyer pays all the costs associated with the lawsuit. S/he doesn't recover any costs if s/he loses. An expert witness might charge the lawyer $1,000/hour for reviewing the medical records, meeting with the lawyer, giving depositions, testifying in court. The lawyer is paying clerical staff, overhead, filing fees, etc. It might take 3-5 years before the lawyer gets paid a cent.
Finally 82% of medical malpractice suits get $0. In 82% of the cases the lawyer spends lots of time and money and makes nothing.
In the other 18%, the average settlement is $425,000.
The advantage to this approach is that a lawyer won't take on a case unless they think they have a good chance of winning. If an individual had to pay the lawyer, the expert witnesses, etc. up front, only the wealthy would be able to sue. If someone has been harmed by another's negligence they should be able to get their case heard in court.
This is where the US and Canada diverge. Only a couple of provinces even permit litigation contingencies, but they also insist that ALL costs be borne by the plaintiff from the get-go. The brilliant litigator we consulted (who later became a Supreme Court justice) told us that while we had a strong case, we would have to, by provincial law, provide a 6-figure retainer from which the firm would pay expenses prior to ever making it to court. He also said he believed the case would drag on for years because the hospital would do whatever they could to avoid having to pay. And had our son died, instead of surviving, his wrongful death would have been "worth" $20,000. Federal law. So there, in a nutshell, is why Canadians rarely sue for malpractice.
I never stated it wasn't. However, insinuating that ALL WOMEN who have a child should be issued narcotics(as one poster did) or that ALL those that have paid should be offered such medication is worrisome. Unfortunately, it has come to be the mentality that everyone should be absolutely pain free at all times, and this isn't possible.
I truly feel that by fostering this view that one should be pain-free at all times is disastrous. Drug-seeking behaviour starts early... and cultural practices make it harder and harder to find a middle ground.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
Losing a child is such an unimaginable tragedy and my heart goes out to any parent who has had to experience such a devastating loss.
I can definitely understand suing if you want to have someone accept responsibility/accountability and to acknowledge wrongdoing (if it took place) and I can also understand wanting to be compensated for the of cost bereavement counselling, loss of wages due to being unable to work during a period of time and for other necessary care/support that follows in the wake of such a tragedy. However seeing that someone is suing for almost double-digit millions (which is an insane amount of money) makes me glad that I live and work in a country where healthcare professionals aren't sued. Here, a patient can definitely report licensed healthcare professionals to the licensing and oversight authority but you can't sue or be sued for zillions.
I can't help it, when I hear of cases similar to this one, the large amount of money makes it seem slightly mercenary to me. You can't assign a dollar value to a human life and attempting to do so in fact has the opposite effect on me. To me, it devalues life when it's viewed in terms of a windfall.
What makes it even more unappealing to me is that if I understand this correctly, a rather large percentage of a potential settlement goes to the lawyers? If I got that part right, it serves as a powerful incentive to file even more big $ law suits (compared to if the legal team were paid a more modest fixed fee).
On a societal scale, the prevalence of law suits in the healthcare industry is bound to ultimately increase the cost of healthcare. I think it's quite unfortunate. Frankly, I think it's a sick system.
The lawyers probably took this case on a contingency, meaning they don't get paid unless they win. So yes, they'll probably get about a third.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
The woman is claiming the nurse came in at night to give her, her baby to breastfeed. The woman is saying the nurse is at fault because she was medicated with Ambien & Vicodin & was unsupervised while breastfeeding her son. She then states she dozed off with her son in her bed & then when she woke up her son was in her bed, unresponsive. She called for a nurse but one didn't come. Apparently, the woman had to leave her room to get a nurse to attend to her son.
So, what do all of you think of this? Is this a case of neglect? Does the nurse deserve to be sued?
First, I would question the facts as we're hearing only one side of the story; the side designed to make the mother look as good as possible. We don't know how long the nurse was out of the room -- five minutes? Ten? Or how long the mother waited for the call bell to be answered -- 5 seconds? If she was that groggy, was she actually pushing the call bell? Did she wait for someone to answer, or just immediately run out into the hall? If she didn't wait for someone to answer the call bell, it changes the story somewhat, doesn't it?
RunnerNurse09, BSN, RN
185 Posts
I was thinking the same thing. I had episiotomies with both kids and got Motrin. I survived. Again, narcotics being over used.