妇科-外科医生不承担未能移除所有保留的受孕产品的责任:X诉Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust(考文垂县法院,2015年5月21日- Mithani QC法官)

J. Mead
{"title":"妇科-外科医生不承担未能移除所有保留的受孕产品的责任:X诉Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust(考文垂县法院,2015年5月21日- Mithani QC法官)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262215618047a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior to the relevant procedure on 26 October 2009, X had given birth to four children by way of Caesarean section. In addition, she had undergone three terminations, two miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy. In September 2009, X discovered that she was 12 weeks pregnant. She wished to have a termination and was initially referred to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. However, they were unable to assist her with a termination because they considered she needed to see a specialist. Consequently, she was referred to the defendant trust. She came under the care of Mr Ohizua, a consultant gynaecologist. She did not dispute the assessment undertaken by Mr Ohizua in which he advised her as to options, the risks associated with each method of termination and the steps which would be involved. During his assessment, the consultant gave careful consideration to X’s medical history. He concluded that she could be at high risk of abnormal adherence of the placenta, which would carry a high risk of additional bleeding. As a consequence, he undertook an ultrasound scan before deciding whether surgery was feasible. This indicated that X had a posterior placenta, which meant a lower risk than an anterior placenta. He therefore devised a plan which included a first stage of administration of drugs with a view to termination. Unfortunately, this proved unsuccessful and therefore Mr Ohizua proceeded to the second stage of his plan, namely surgical termination. This operation occurred on 26 October 2009. Amongst the advice he gave prior to obtaining consent was that surgery might be ‘incomplete’ to the extent that there could be retained products of conception. X agreed to proceed to surgery. In his witness statement Mr Ohizua described how, following removal of the foetus, he undertook suction to ensure removal of any parts which might have remained. He also employed ultrasound as a visual aid. Once he had completed the operation he performed three checks, in keeping with his usual practice, to ensure that most of the products of conception had been removed:","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"21 1","pages":"100 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215618047a","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gynaecology – Surgeon not liable for failing to remove all retained products of conception: X v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust (Coventry County Court, 21/5/2015 – Judge Mithani QC)\",\"authors\":\"J. Mead\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262215618047a\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior to the relevant procedure on 26 October 2009, X had given birth to four children by way of Caesarean section. In addition, she had undergone three terminations, two miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy. In September 2009, X discovered that she was 12 weeks pregnant. She wished to have a termination and was initially referred to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. However, they were unable to assist her with a termination because they considered she needed to see a specialist. Consequently, she was referred to the defendant trust. She came under the care of Mr Ohizua, a consultant gynaecologist. She did not dispute the assessment undertaken by Mr Ohizua in which he advised her as to options, the risks associated with each method of termination and the steps which would be involved. During his assessment, the consultant gave careful consideration to X’s medical history. He concluded that she could be at high risk of abnormal adherence of the placenta, which would carry a high risk of additional bleeding. As a consequence, he undertook an ultrasound scan before deciding whether surgery was feasible. This indicated that X had a posterior placenta, which meant a lower risk than an anterior placenta. He therefore devised a plan which included a first stage of administration of drugs with a view to termination. Unfortunately, this proved unsuccessful and therefore Mr Ohizua proceeded to the second stage of his plan, namely surgical termination. This operation occurred on 26 October 2009. Amongst the advice he gave prior to obtaining consent was that surgery might be ‘incomplete’ to the extent that there could be retained products of conception. X agreed to proceed to surgery. In his witness statement Mr Ohizua described how, following removal of the foetus, he undertook suction to ensure removal of any parts which might have remained. He also employed ultrasound as a visual aid. Once he had completed the operation he performed three checks, in keeping with his usual practice, to ensure that most of the products of conception had been removed:\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"100 - 101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215618047a\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215618047a\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215618047a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2009年10月26日进行有关手术前,X已通过剖腹产生下四名子女。此外,她还经历了三次终止妊娠,两次流产和一次宫外孕。2009年9月,X发现自己怀孕12周。她希望终止妊娠,最初被转介到英国妊娠咨询服务中心。然而,他们无法帮助她终止妊娠,因为他们认为她需要去看专家。因此,她被转介给被告信托基金。她接受了妇产科顾问医生大津先生的治疗。她并没有对大穗先生所做的评估提出异议,他在评估中向她提供了各种选择、每种终止妊娠方法的风险以及可能涉及的步骤。在评估时,咨询师仔细考虑了X的病史。他的结论是,她可能有胎盘异常粘附的高风险,这将带来额外出血的高风险。因此,在决定手术是否可行之前,他做了一次超声波扫描。这表明X有后胎盘,这意味着比前胎盘的风险更低。因此,他制定了一项计划,其中包括第一阶段的药物管理,以期终止。不幸的是,这被证明是不成功的,因此Ohizua先生进行了他计划的第二阶段,即手术终止。该手术发生于2009年10月26日。在获得同意之前,他给出的建议之一是,手术可能是“不完整的”,因为可能会保留受孕产物。X同意进行手术。在他的证词中,Ohizua先生描述了在取出胎儿后,他是如何进行吸力以确保取出任何可能残留的部分的。他还使用超声波作为视觉辅助工具。手术一完成,他就按照惯例进行了三次检查,以确保大部分受孕产物已经被移除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gynaecology – Surgeon not liable for failing to remove all retained products of conception: X v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust (Coventry County Court, 21/5/2015 – Judge Mithani QC)
Prior to the relevant procedure on 26 October 2009, X had given birth to four children by way of Caesarean section. In addition, she had undergone three terminations, two miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy. In September 2009, X discovered that she was 12 weeks pregnant. She wished to have a termination and was initially referred to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. However, they were unable to assist her with a termination because they considered she needed to see a specialist. Consequently, she was referred to the defendant trust. She came under the care of Mr Ohizua, a consultant gynaecologist. She did not dispute the assessment undertaken by Mr Ohizua in which he advised her as to options, the risks associated with each method of termination and the steps which would be involved. During his assessment, the consultant gave careful consideration to X’s medical history. He concluded that she could be at high risk of abnormal adherence of the placenta, which would carry a high risk of additional bleeding. As a consequence, he undertook an ultrasound scan before deciding whether surgery was feasible. This indicated that X had a posterior placenta, which meant a lower risk than an anterior placenta. He therefore devised a plan which included a first stage of administration of drugs with a view to termination. Unfortunately, this proved unsuccessful and therefore Mr Ohizua proceeded to the second stage of his plan, namely surgical termination. This operation occurred on 26 October 2009. Amongst the advice he gave prior to obtaining consent was that surgery might be ‘incomplete’ to the extent that there could be retained products of conception. X agreed to proceed to surgery. In his witness statement Mr Ohizua described how, following removal of the foetus, he undertook suction to ensure removal of any parts which might have remained. He also employed ultrasound as a visual aid. Once he had completed the operation he performed three checks, in keeping with his usual practice, to ensure that most of the products of conception had been removed:
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信