|
Apart from general mismanagement and medical negligence, could the hospital be held negligent for not transferring the patient? The child has permanent disabilities as a direct result of premature birth. Okay, let's go back to the criteria for negligence... The hospital had a duty of care to the woman and the foetus. You must prove that they failed to exercise that duty of care AND the baby was damaged BECAUSE OF the decision, AND the breach of care could reasonably be foreseen to cause the damage. If any one of those fails, you're sunk. Premature babies often have problems, but please don't assume ('cos you don't want to be fuming for the rest of your life) that somehow the doctors caused this. Do you know that the baby was damaged during the septicaemia? If the baby had problems before the woman entered the hospital, the doctors couldn't fix it. Remember that of all the people with cerebral palsy, 90% of those people had cerebral palsy before they hit their 20th week of gestation. (That is to say, the prevalence of cerebral palsy amongst 20-week old foetuses is equivalent to 90% of that of the general population). In order to hold the hospital negligent, you need to show that there was a failure to make a decision which could reasonably have been foreseen to prevent the disabilities. ie Even if she had been transferred, would the baby have been born non-disabled? Some further points to consider: - Transferring patients who are septic is a very major undertaking. They can 'crash' while in transit, and thus would need to be transferred intensive-care _style_, with at least one doctor. It is highly irregular to transfer patients who are in need of emergent care. Transfers usually happen because someone's file is somewhere else, or because the hospital is full to the point of overcrowding. If she was already at a major hospital, she should stay there. It would be much more reasonable to transfer a doctor in the back of an ambulance (this often happens for neurosurgical emergencies). - If she did have full-blown septicaemia, it would have been impossible to delay the onset of labour. - The septicaemia may have some relation to the kidney pain, but you sure haven't proved that. It is more likely to come from the bladder. - Was the baby born disabled as a result of the septicaemia? This depends on what sort of disability you're talking about. (It would be very helpful if you described it). - Would doing a Caesarean have helped the child? (you know that 50% of babies born at 26 weeks die, don't you?) Would delivering the child in a hurry (Caesar or vaginal birth) have resulted in a worse outcome? In conclusion, I have often seen patients stamping around screaming that a doctor has caused damage to their baby/grandmother/son, but often they are completely wrong and are just looking for a scalp - looking for someone to blame. Often they are absolutely, completely wrong and quite obviously so, but they don't realise it because they're not willing to listen. Childbirth is a hazardous process. 5% of all babies born in this country have a major disability. Neither I nor my graduate colleagues can do a damn thing about it. There is enough of a case there, however, for you to speak to a lawyer. Slater and Gordon have a medical negligence specialty. Maddock, Chilsom and Co. have a good reputation in the field too. Be prepared to fork out cash, and be prepared to be disappointed. Going on what you said, your case sounds like there is a considerable defense available. The first stop is the hospital itself. Take your lawyer with you and go through the notes. Freedom of Information Act (I'm assuming this is a public hospital) gives you the right to see and photocopy your notes, and every hospital simply gives them to you to avoid paperwork. I ought to point out that one day, I would like to work in the area of medical negligence, suing doctors, and that if your case sounded clearcut I would be the first to say 'punish them'. I'm not acting in defense of my colleagues out of corporate loyalty - it's just that at the end of the day, you need to reduce this down to facts.. In the meantime, pick up a torts textbook from the law library of Sydney University (which has a magnificent law library), and 'Obstetrics and the Newborn' from the medical library. It will at least give you a grip on what's going on, and in it you will find independent verification of the other side of the story. Good luck. Richard Cavell
|
Favoured: 0
He usually makes no response when he's shown to be wrong though.... Still no response to Filing 4 Bankruptcy in Victoria ...
