Liability conceded in foetal-abnormality mistaken-diagnosis case.

cruizer101

Flinty997 wrote: »

Not to trivialize anything. But I remember watching a TV show about interns and they were warned that at some point it was a given that some of them will inadvertently kill someone in trying to save or treat them. That's the nature of medicine. Hospitals have insurance for these kind of reasons. Because mistakes and accidents happen. We learn from them and that's how things get better. But they have have decided that's these claims are the appropriate way of dealing with these situations.

I agree mistakes will always happen and we need to learn from them to try and reduce them as much as possible but understand they will always happen, particularly in medicine where medical techniques are constantly improving/changing there will always be that chance of mistakes.
Sometimes an individual will be at fault, sometimes the process and sometimes no one at all really.

In this case maybe the consultant didn't give all the information, maybe they did but given the terrible news the parents were getting they missed it.

lazygal

At the time this case was reported I was really, really confused by the timeline.
I had the harmony blood testing done in 2018 (before repeal). I had a high risk result for Edwards syndrome and was informed by phonecall from my consultant 6 days after the test. She advised amniocentesis and that this would be done at 16 weeks. So a wait of 3.5 weeks approx. I had another scan in the meantime and it showed no markers, but I wanted the amniocentesis as this is a conclusive result. I was also advised that the harmony test was not conclusive, it was not a diagnostic test.
I had amniocentesis and the results of this took under a week to come back, thankfully with a negative result for any abnormality. I now have a healthy 2 year old child.
I cannot understand why a consultant would have recommended or even discussed termination at the point where the harmony bloods were the sole information available. Maybe other tests were carried out and we just don't know. But it baffled me that it seemed to be harmony->recommend termination->have termination->wait for conclusive results afterwards.

KaneToad

Flinty997 wrote: »

This story isn't an endless debate. The repeal of the 8th might be, because that's subjective. But this case isn't anything to do with that.

You're correct. That's what I meant.

cruizer101

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe other tests were carried out and we just don't know. But it baffled me that it seemed to be harmony->recommend termination->have termination->wait for conclusive results afterwards.

There was a second test carried out, Chorionic Villus Sampling which seems equivalent to amniocentesis (I'm far from medical professional but from bit of googling it seems an equivalent test), so it wasn't just the harmony test carried out.
Then the third test full Karotype analysis was the one that returned the negative result after the termination.
It does seem strange to not have waited for the results of it, especially given it was still early enough in the pregnancy.

lazygal

cruizer101 wrote: »

There was a second test carried out, Chorionic Villus Sampling which seems equivalent to amniocentesis (I'm far from medical professional but from bit of googling it seems an equivalent test), so it wasn't just the harmony test carried out.
Then the third test full Karotype analysis was the one that returned the negative result after the termination.
It does seem strange to not have waited for the results of it, especially given it was still early enough in the pregnancy.

CVS is cells from the placenta, the amnio tests the amniotic fluid. I was recommended amnio as it covers all chromosonal abnormalities.



I think this is a case of someone dropping the ball big time on tests and clinical recommendations.

Nermal

Flinty997 wrote: »

Hospitals have insurance for these kind of reasons.

Insurance doesn't create money from thin air.

How many millions will this cost us?

Will someone be fired for negligence?

If you want a health service where mere errors results in huge payouts, you should pay the additional cost it incurs.

KeepItLight

I am anti-abortion, and think its impossible to justify in any other context OTHER than the scenario in which these parents had to deal with.

This is simply a tragedy, and the poor parents are not to blame - I find it appalling that people are attacking them for this.

Padraig Mor

cruizer101 wrote: »

There was a second test carried out, Chorionic Villus Sampling which seems equivalent to amniocentesis (I'm far from medical professional but from bit of googling it seems an equivalent test), so it wasn't just the harmony test carried out.
Then the third test full Karotype analysis was the one that returned the negative result after the termination.
It does seem strange to not have waited for the results of it, especially given it was still early enough in the pregnancy.

My recollection from the original reporting is that the couple wanted to wait for the results of the third test but were essentially railroaded into an abortion by the consultant. They're also claiming that the incorrect positive result in the second test is actually a well known artefect of using placenta samples and that the consultant should have known this, but apparently didn't. IIRC they weren't told about the 'normal' results either until they went digging - I think they had to engage an independent doctor or something to actually get the test results from the hospital.

lazygal

I think its like a lot of malpractice, it isn't the bad thing that happened that's the huge issue, its the cover up or perceived cover up that's caused the damage.

crossman47

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many women get terminations so it doesn't naturally follow that it is a traumatic event. Is getting your appendix accidentally removed a traumatic event?

That's a daft comparison. You are not expecting your appendix to live and bring you joy.

crossman47

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However on a more general note I do not think "accept democracy" should ever be taken to mean "you lost, go away and shut up".

Democracy for me means that when you lose, you go back and get new and better arguments so that NEXT time you can win. Then if you "lose in the 80's" you can come back and win later on. And that is what the Pro-Choice people did.

.

Democracy also means you should accept the valid concerns of a minority and accommodate them as far as possible. I voted yes but was appalled by the dismissive attitude of Harris and others afterwards. Telling people they voted for his abortion law was wrong. They didn't - they voted for a change in the constitution. he refused to accept any moderation of his proposal.

Quantum Erasure

Flinty997 wrote: »

These tests and similar have been done long before the amendment. The repeal of the 8th made no difference to this.

The outcome may have been different if abortion wasn't available here, the couple might have waited for results of a confirmatory test before arranging a termination in the UK.

Quantum Erasure

Padraig Mor wrote: »

My recollection from the original reporting is that the couple wanted to wait for the results of the third test but were essentially railroaded into an abortion by the consultant. They're also claiming that the incorrect positive result in the second test is actually a well known artefect of using placenta samples and that the consultant should have known this, but apparently didn't. IIRC they weren't told about the 'normal' results either until they went digging - I think they had to engage an independent doctor or something to actually get the test results from the hospital.

The consultants advice may have been different if the 8th hadn't been repealed

Flinty997

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The consultants advice may have been different if the 8th hadn't been repealed

Maybe we'd have more expertise if we hadn't been exporting our problems to other countries for generations.

Flinty997

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The outcome may have been different if abortion wasn't available here, the couple might have waited for results of a confirmatory test before arranging a termination in the UK.

Why do mistakes not happen in the UK.

Flinty997

Padraig Mor wrote: »

My recollection from the original reporting is that the couple wanted to wait for the results of the third test but were essentially railroaded into an abortion by the consultant. They're also claiming that the incorrect positive result in the second test is actually a well known artefect of using placenta samples and that the consultant should have known this, but apparently didn't. IIRC they weren't told about the 'normal' results either until they went digging - I think they had to engage an independent doctor or something to actually get the test results from the hospital.

Do you have any links to any of this. Knowing all this would be fundamental to understanding this case. As given by the OP it's missing a lot of information.

Flinty997

lazygal wrote: »

CVS is cells from the placenta, the amnio tests the amniotic fluid. I was recommended amnio as it covers all chromosonal abnormalities.

I think this is a case of someone dropping the ball big time on tests and clinical recommendations.

Indeed it seems like are missing some critical parts of this puzzle.

topdecko

Very tricky case but seems it was a misinterpretation of the test results by the consultant and subsequent tragedy that unfolded. Pity thread is again hijacked by those with an agenda rather than a forum for discussion around the topic at hand which is not the abortion but rather the steps and indeed missteps in the lead up to the decision.
For anyone without a background in medicine or interpretation of tests then you need to understand (or try to get head around) Bayes thereom. Many doctors do not understand it and it creates havoc as it is counter-intuitive like much of statistics.
https://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/

The tests they are using to screen for a rare condition will give false positives - not sure of actual rate but must happen. We need to know exact timeline here - was there a compelling reason to have the termination prior to the more conclusive karotype results coming back.

osarusan

Horrible case, can't imagine what they would have gone through.

Not sure we can say it wouldn't have happened if the 8th hadn't been repealed. Firstly, had everything happened as it did but with the 8th in place, they may well just have headed to England for an abortion there. Perhaps it's just more accurate to say it wouldn't have happened here.

And also worth pointing out (in my opinion), that while this terrible tragedy might well have been avoided and that couple might now have a healthy happy baby, had the 8th still in place, the 8th still being in place would also mean that parents who receive a correct diagnosis of Trisomy 18 during pregnancy would have had no choice but to wait for the birth to take place, which would be followed by death within 2 weeks in approx 50% of cases, and within a year in approx 90% of cases.

Some couples may choose to do that anyway - but it should be their choice, as it should be their choice to decide not to do that. No pregnant woman should be forced to do that.

padd b1975

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many women get terminations so it doesn't naturally follow that it is a traumatic event. Is getting your appendix accidentally removed a traumatic event?

Classy....

lazygal

topdecko wrote: »

The tests they are using to screen for a rare condition will give false positives - not sure of actual rate but must happen. We need to know exact timeline here - was there a compelling reason to have the termination prior to the more conclusive karotype results coming back.

I wonder how exactly the test was explained to this couple, and if they read the literature provided when you have it.
IME people who have this test are already pretty aware of what can go wrong in a pregnancy. Isn't the father in this case a doctor himself? Not that you need to be, but these tests are specialised and expensive. Out of 10,000 pregnancies in Holles St, approx 1,000 of these tests are done, and mostly people who are already under consultant private care request them. You're usually asking for this test because of your age, previous miscarriage, genetic history and so on, so I'd wager you're probably fairly au fair with what they're about before you even get the official information.
I was told when I first inquired with my consultant that she would recommend it given my age and stressed that is will not give me a conclusive result, it is purely about the risk of an anomaly. When I went for the blood test a week later I was told the same thing by the nurse who took my bloods, and I kept all the info I was given which says the same thing.

When I got that high risk result, it was again stressed that this was not conclusive, that I was not to panic or rush to make any decision (this was pre repeal) and that further tests were required for a conclusive result.

Something somewhere went wrong with this couple, if it is communication or a mix up somewhere along the line.

political analyst

The case has been settled.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0623/1230963-wrongful-termination/

Ms Price and Mr Kiely were told that a blood test when Ms Price was 12 weeks pregnant with their first child in early 2019 was positive for Trisomy 18, a serious and rare genetic disorder, also known as Edwards Syndrome.

A further rapid result PCR test carried out in a Glasgow laboratory also showed Trisomy 18 had been detected, and Ms Price and Mr Kiely say they followed the advice of their consultant, Professor Fionnuala MacAuliffe, and had a termination on 14 March 2019.

The results of a full cell culture test showed that the baby did not have the condition.

Ms Price said she had experienced all-consuming mental and physical trauma ever since.

Faugheen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Many women get terminations so it doesn't naturally follow that it is a traumatic event. Is getting your appendix accidentally removed a traumatic event?

So whether an abortion is a traumatic event or not is a catch-all for all women, is it?

That's some warped sh*t right there. This couple wanted the baby and were told it wouldn't survive, so made the decision to terminate.

How can you compare that to getting an appendix removed?

I really, really hope you or members of your family never have to go through what this couple have gone through.

lazygal

Some people are traumatised because they had an abortion. Or because they had a vaginal delivery. Or because they had a c section. Or because they had a episiotomy. Or because they couldn't have an abortion.
Humans are complex. I am prochoice and voted repeal, went on prochoice marches, etc.
When I was pregnant and there was a possibility of Edward's syndrome, I knew I would likely continue the pregnancy regardless of the diagnosis. In the very unlikely event I get pregnant now I am 99.99% sure I will have as early an abortion as possible. What would be traumatic would be staying pregnant against my wishes or having an abortion I didn't want. And what might have caused me trauma on my first pregnancy wouldn't turn a hair on my head now.

Flinty997

Carrying a baby to term, that you know won't survive, and everyone congratulating you and asking baby questions for 6 months is also to be considered.

lazygal

No one knows what they will do in a situation until they are in it. And even then you may make a choice you will come to regret.

Flinty997

lazygal wrote: »

No one knows what they will do in a situation until they are in it. And even then you may make a choice you will come to regret.

So true.

jimmycrackcorm

Faugheen wrote: »

So whether an abortion is a traumatic event or not is a catch-all for all women, is it?

That's some warped sh*t right there. This couple wanted the baby and were told it wouldn't survive, so made the decision to terminate.

How can you compare that to getting an appendix removed?

I really, really hope you or members of your family never have to go through what this couple has gone through.

It's totally subjective though isn't it - one woman's foetus is a baby and another woman's foetus is a clump of cells that will be discarded like an appendix.

I can compare it because the vast majority of abortions are comparable, just less invasive at a surgical level.

I made the point in the context of taking a case and a decision about compensation, which I also see no mention of in the high court settlement. I suspect this has something to do with my point that a foetus is regarded in law now as much as an appendix...

You can be as emotive as you want about your "really, really" hope, but our society, has deemed in law, that a foetus is disposable. This is why this case isn't seeing the monetary awards for post-birth issues.

political analyst

osarusan wrote: »

Horrible case, can't imagine what they would have gone through.

Not sure we can say it wouldn't have happened if the 8th hadn't been repealed. Firstly, had everything happened as it did but with the 8th in place, they may well just have headed to England for an abortion there. Perhaps it's just more accurate to say it wouldn't have happened here.

And also worth pointing out (in my opinion), that while this terrible tragedy might well have been avoided and that couple might now have a healthy happy baby, had the 8th still in place, the 8th still being in place would also mean that parents who receive a correct diagnosis of Trisomy 18 during pregnancy would have had no choice but to wait for the birth to take place, which would be followed by death within 2 weeks in approx 50% of cases, and within a year in approx 90% of cases.

Some couples may choose to do that anyway - but it should be their choice, as it should be their choice to decide not to do that. No pregnant woman should be forced to do that.

The difference is that in the case that has just been settled, a child died needlessly. In pre-repeal cases where the mothers were informed with certainty that their unborn children had Trisomy 18, the children were dying. If you save one life, you save all of mankind.

lawred2

Padraig Mor wrote: »

My recollection from the original reporting is that the couple wanted to wait for the results of the third test but were essentially railroaded into an abortion by the consultant. They're also claiming that the incorrect positive result in the second test is actually a well known artefect of using placenta samples and that the consultant should have known this, but apparently didn't. IIRC they weren't told about the 'normal' results either until they went digging - I think they had to engage an independent doctor or something to actually get the test results from the hospital.

What's your recollection based on?