> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-31-malpractice-suits_x.htm <snippage now> > > > > Fear of getting sued leads an alarming number of > > doctors to practice "defensive medicine," such as > > ordering unnecessary tests and avoiding risky > > procedures, a survey found. The practice has been > > around for decades, and is no secret to many > patients. But the survey of 824 Pennsylvania doctors > suggests it > > is surprisingly common, researchers said.... > > > > Ninety-three percent of the Pennsylvania doctors > [from > > high-liability specialties] surveyed in 2003 said > they > > sometimes or often practiced "defensive medicine" > > because of malpractice concerns. "That means they > > engaged in unsound practices that exposed patients > >to potential harm," said Dr. Peter Budetti, a > > physician-lawyer and public health professor at > > University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. He > > called the numbers staggering.... {I don't completely agree with that statement - frex ordering extra lab tests when a few are completely justified only adds to the expense, not any extra danger. He was a bit hyberbolic there.} > So, I'm wondering something now about my own most > interesting experience in a hospital.... > > I gave birth to twins almost 21 months ago. 10 days > before I gave > birth, an ultrasound was performed for the purpose > of determining the > position of each fetus. They were both head-down, > and I'd given birth > to a fairly large baby previously, so my doc and I > were on the same page, vaginal delivery. > > I was induced <sniplet> and the first baby, the > one who'd been lower down for at least a couple of > months at that point, > was born without any major incident. <sniplet> > Then it was time to deliver the second twin. SOP in > this case seems to > be, rupture the amniotic sac and deliver. Well... ><sniplet> when his sac was ruptured, he decided he > didn't like the > position he'd been in for entirely too long. > Attempts to turn him > manually failed, so the doc was left with 2 choices: > breech delivery or > quick, unplanned c-section. She opted with the > breech delivery, and > apparently shocked the rest of the medical personnel > in the room; > apparently, that just isn't *done* at that > particular hospital. > > Now, I think it was the best thing for everyone > directly involved -- it > was over more quickly, once she made the decision, I > didn't have an > incision in my abdomen to recover from, and I think > it carried less risk > to the baby, given that she'd had some experience in > breech deliveries <sniplet> > So, in that case, what would be the "defensive" > action? The breech delivery or the c-section? I think this was more of a judgement call; both courses have potential risks/bad outcomes (of course, so does vaginal delivery!), so your doc made her best call -- and it worked out fine. I don't recall precisely what the time-to-delivery is in an emergency C-section, although I think it's ~ 7-10 minutes; if blood/oxygen flow is compromised for that time, and breech birth time is shorter, the risk to the baby would be lesser (as you noted, not having your gut sliced-n-diced was better for you). Defensive medicine that would have involved possible *increased* risk would have been to electively C-section without a try at vag deliv. [my opinion] Debbi who read yesterday that women docs have suicide rates *130% higher* than non-physician women (male docs have a 40% higher suicide rate than non-doc men) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
