Nurse is Gonna Be in a World of Hurt

[tellner]

Recent news item

ALBUQUERQUE (CN) - A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that "having the IUD come out was a good thing," because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
...
"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'
...
Defendant Olona suggested the deprovera (depo) [sic] shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD."

No matter what one's opinions on abortion or birth control I think we can all agree on a few things here...

• Performing a non-emergency medical procedure without the (conscious competent) patient's permission is beyond the Pale.
• Lying about it is an indefensible breach of professional ethics.
• If Nurse Olona did this so often that staff "joked" (her words) about it the clinic was aware of a pattern of unprofessional behavior and did nothing to prevent it.
• Nursie is about to lose her job.
• And probably her license.
• The clinic and its parent corporation are going to be taken to the cleaners.
• If there's any evidence that they knew and did nothing they are going to be getting it badly from the State Medical Review Board.
• The plaintiff's lawyer has a huge smile on his face and is probably dangerously sexually aroused.

Question for the ladies:

If your health care provider did this to you would you first

• Demand to see the clinic's medical director?
• Call an attorney?
• Beat the technicolor hell out of the nurse practitioner?

 

[Sukerkin]

If that is true then serious breaches of professional conduct were committed.

The nurse may be entitled to her views on birth control but does not have the right to enforce those views upon others in her care.

Not knowing the specific ins-and-outs (no pun intended) of the case I can say no more than that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

wow. just, wow.

 

[arnisador]

The nurse may be entitled to her views on birth control but does not have the right to enforce those views upon others in her care.

Exactly. Save me from those who are certain that they are right.

 

[MA-Caver]

The nurse was definitely in the wrong. Unless the woman's health was at stake or endangered she should've left that thing alone.

 

[tellner]

And even then MA-Caver, the patient was conscious and legally capable of making her own decisions. Every legal precedent would be against the health care provider.

 

[Tez3]

On the question for the ladies, I should say the first two options would be the correct thing to do but I would be sorely tempted to do the third option!

 

[teekin]

Have a friendly chat with Nursie as she writes up chart and give her more rope to hang herself. Ask to see chart, read chart to verify accuracy of record. Once records are dead accurate take chart to local Staples and make 2 sets of Photo copies. ( I'm hoping Nursie try's to stop me from leaving).
Go see Uncle Brian, (Lawyer, Uberbarracuda nasty nasty lawyer) and give him a photocopy of the chart and a statement.
Plan a trip to California for the Spring Circuit.
You have to override the initial impulse to beat her senseless of course, better to strip her of her ability to practice any sort of "care". This ***** needs to burn.:dalek:

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Right. I'll get to work on the crucifix..........:rpo:

 

[terryl965]

The nurse was definitely in the wrong. Unless the woman's health was at stake or endangered she should've left that thing alone.

I would have to agree, if the patient was in danger that would be the only way.

 

[morph4me]

wow. just, wow.

Yeah, what he said.

My usual attitude about civil suits is that someone is trying to use the legal system as a lottery, but in this case I hope the plaintiff wins so much that the nurse is considered too high a liability to ever be hired by anyone, to do anything more than serve burgers, again.

 

[shesulsa]

She should be reported to the nursing board and have her certification removed, if any. How dare she?

 

[bluekey88]

Speechless....

 

[KELLYG]

From the court document the patient had had the IUD for approximately 8 monthswith out any problems with its placement. She had chosen and IUD as her method of birth control. The nurse made it a point to interject her personal beliefs on the patient with out her knowledge, and had done so frequently enough that she was teased about it from her co-workers. This nurse should be sued as well as the practice she works for both in my opinion were at fault. Mean while if I were the patient I would have to forcibly keep myself from hunting her down and whooping butt.

 

[Nolerama]

If it's at a point where her co-workers are poking fun at her for this repetitive behavior, I think those running that particular work place also need to come under serious scrutiny.

That's like having a serial killer occasionally offing a patient and everyone in that office just jokes about it and leaves it alone.

The leader of that practice should also come under investigation and, I think, is at least partially liable for that nurse's actions.

 

[jarrod]

you folks are losing sight of the big picture...& that's the number of babies this woman saved!!!



jf

 

[tellner]

Well jarrod, sooner or later one of her patients is going to give her an empty-hand hysterectomy, so it's probably a wash in the babies department

 

[aedrasteia]

Thanks Tellner for the post.

not a surprise. Consistent with positions of extreme conservative right anti-reproductive rights groups and individuals

see www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/91560.php

or read below. I'm curious about which (if any) anti-reproductive rights groups will line up to fund and conduct her defense. Her actions are unquestionably grounds for criminal as well as civil action. Her license will be revoked and she will be prosecuted, if justice prevails.

My choice of response?
Multiple, explosive kicks to nurse's face from semi-prone position (pelvic exam you know). "Unavoidable reflex response to sudden infliction of _severe_ pain - oops, sorry about the facial damage."

**********************************************

Bush plan defines pill, IUD as abortion
Fertilization vs. implantation

July 21, 2008, 6:55 p.m.
ANNE T. DENOGEAN Tucson Citizen

In its final months, the Bush administration is wrapping up a parting gift for the religious right: an official definition of abortion so sweeping it would include the use of birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraceptives, as well as intrauterine devices.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services quietly drafted a rule that would put into federal code this radical definition of abortion.
"The basis is ideology," said Rachel Chánes, the Tucson-based vice president of community services for Planned Parenthood Arizona. "We think this is coming from the Bush-appointed ideologues that are in there who are not apologetic about (the department's) stance on being anti-woman, anti-birth control and anti-abortion."

The proposal came to light because somebody leaked it to the public. It expands upon federal law that prohibits entities that receive federal dollars from discriminating against health care providers - institutions and individuals - who refuse to perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions based on moral objections.

The problem is the rule allows the individual or the institution to decide when a pregnancy begins and what constitutes an abortion, rather than relying on the widely accepted scientific definitions of both.

The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that a pregnancy is established only after a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Up to one-half of fertilized eggs never implant.

The draft rule defines abortion as any procedure or drug that results in the termination of a fertilized egg, even prior to implantation. Hormonal forms of birth control, including the pill, the patch, the ring and shots, work primarily by preventing ovulation and fertilization. But some people believe hormonal contraceptives also work to a lesser degree - though this hasn't been scientifically demonstrated - by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

The IUD had a reputation for preventing pregnancy by preventing implantation, but recent evidence on IUDs suggests it works primarily by preventing fertilization.

Scientific evidence be damned in Bush World. If this rule was put into place, it would conflate contraception with abortion.
Once officially in the federal code, the new definition of contraception as abortion inevitably would be used in ways that would limit the access of women to nearly every form of birth control, save for condoms, diaphragms, spermicides cold showers and chastity belts.

The rule would take precedence over state laws around the country, including in Arizona, that require hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. It would undermine laws requiring insurers, including those that routinely cover Viagra, to also cover contraceptives.
The U.S. agency isn't talking about the draft rule. But Chánes said the word from Planned Parenthood sources in Washington, D.C., is that the proposal is moving through the system and an official announcement is expected from the Bush administration within the next few weeks.
"It's an impending threat but it hasn't been realized yet," she said.
Chánes said there are rumors that the Bush administration also is considering a rule against providing abortion counseling, a gag rule, for any health care provider that receives federal family planning funding. That would include Planned Parenthood.

The agency's rules aren't subject to a vote by Congress, but concerned citizens should contact their senators and representatives immediately to put pressure on the administration. Of course, this slick attempt to create new abortion policy by bypassing Congress, the people and the courts underscores the importance of the upcoming presidential election to the preservation of women's reproductive rights.

If Barack Obama is elected, the extremist definition of abortion probably would be overturned. If anti-abortion stalwart John McCain is elected, all I can say, ladies, is keep your legs crossed and locked at the knees because the assault on women's reproductive rights will be relentless for the next four years.

 

[tellner]

Here's a PDF of the complaint.