Michigan Supreme Court throws out huge malpractice verdict

[LordShaithis]

Hey, me, my brother, my mother, several friends, their significant others, etc. all work or used to work for Oakwood! Go us! w00t!

[Stormbringer]

So you reject all of the medical evidence that hormone overdoses or even long-term low-level exposure can be harmful?

And the evidence that it actually harmed the child is? There are lots of things that are harmful in overdoses and long term exposure, among them the sun. Does that mean a sunburn child should be taken away from it's parents?

I already explained why. Please address my response rather than mindlessly repeating your question.

And again why is it that the only way professional standards can be maintained to terminate a doctor's carreer over a mistake that has apparently caused no harm.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here is an idea, how about a bettery of tests gets run to see if any harm was done by the overdose, CP is genetic, so there goes that one.

However, terminating a docors carreer(or devestating his pocketbook with a 21 million dollar verdict and the massive increase in malpractice insurance) is unreasonable if no harm was done.

Doctors make mistakes, and in cases where no demonstrable harm was done that can be attributed to a doctors mistake, but when the doctor is simply mistaken, it is unreasonable and actually harmful to litigate due to increasing malpractice insurance costs, and resulting cost of medical care.

[Darth Wong]

So you reject all of the medical evidence that hormone overdoses or even long-term low-level exposure can be harmful?

And the evidence that it actually harmed the child is?

It is impossible to say. However, you are committing an obvious Appeal to Ignorance fallacy by saying that it must be zero if it can't be proven otherwise, particularly in the face of knowledge that there is a general danger from hormones. Medical harm is difficult to show when it comes to chemical overdoses; you could give a newborn infant a big jolt of cocaine and it might be argued later that it can't be shown that there was any harm, but you sure as fuck wouldn't want an ob-gyn who did that to be still practising medicine.

There are lots of things that are harmful in overdoses and long term exposure, among them the sun. Does that mean a sunburn child should be taken away from it's parents?

If an ob-gyn took a baby out from the womb and immediately stuck it in a tanning bed for 8 hours, he should lose his license, yes.

I already explained why. Please address my response rather than mindlessly repeating your question.

And again why is it that the only way professional standards can be maintained to terminate a doctor's carreer over a mistake that has apparently caused no harm.

It demonstrates that a licensed doctor can be trusted to be competent, otherwise the license loses its value. At the very least, he should receive a license suspension of some sort.

[Stormbringer]

It is impossible to say. However, you are committing an obvious Appeal to Ignorance fallacy by saying that it must be zero if it can't be proven otherwise, particularly in the face of knowledge that there is a general danger from hormones. Medical harm is difficult to show when it comes to chemical overdoses; you could give a newborn infant a big jolt of cocaine and it might be argued later that it can't be shown that there was any harm, but you sure as fuck wouldn't want an ob-gyn who did that to be still practising medicine.

It's not an appeal to ignorance argue that a condition which did no appreciable harm to the baby should be treated as more harmful than it is. What happened was not reckless endangerment, it was simple mistake and an apparently harmless one.

If an ob-gyn took a baby out from the womb and immediately stuck it in a tanning bed for 8 hours, he should lose his license, yes.

Way to go on the strawman. Because clearly a reasonable mistake which did no harm is to be equated with gross stupidity that serves no purpose what so ever.

It demonstrates that a licensed doctor can be trusted to be competent, otherwise the license loses its value. At the very least, he should receive a license suspension of some sort.

I think that's a lot more reasonable than immediate, permanent termination.

An objective proffesional reveiw and investigation which would determine the what, how, and why is a much better start. After that the appropriate punishment should be decided on the basis of that investigation.

[Darth Wong]

It's not an appeal to ignorance argue that a condition which did no appreciable harm to the baby should be treated as more harmful than it is.

It is to state that a hormone overdose is harmless with no evidence and then declare that despite the general dangers of hormones, concrete evidence of harm must be presented for any individual case or it should be assumed to be zero. I have pointed this out repeatedly, and like some kind of broken record, you keep repeating that there was zero harm, as if this is established fact rather than your personal speculation. Since you REFUSE to discuss this as a rational person and simply repeat your assertion (even denying that it can possibly be a fallacy because you treat the conclusion as fact), I will not answer any other point by you until you address mine. HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS ZERO HARM?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

It is impossible to say. However, you are committing an obvious Appeal to Ignorance fallacy by saying that it must be zero if it can't be proven otherwise, particularly in the face of knowledge that there is a general danger from hormones.

Please state the "danger" that hormones cause in "general". All you've done so far is hold up a boogy man and proclaim victory.

Medical harm is difficult to show when it comes to chemical overdoses; you could give a newborn infant a big jolt of cocaine and it might be argued later that it can't be shown that there was any harm, but you sure as fuck wouldn't want an ob-gyn who did that to be still practising medicine.

We know the problems that are caused by the administration of Cocaine, and because of this we know it is "bad" for you. We also know that the labor stimulating hormone, Oxytocin, causes only two effects when its injected into the body.

1. During labor it stimulates uterine contractions
2. During lactation it stimulates milk secretion

In other words, why should we suspect damage of some sort when there is no evidence that the hormone in question is capable of causing damage in the dose injected?

It demonstrates that a licensed doctor can be trusted to be competent, otherwise the license loses its value. At the very least, he should receive a license suspension of some sort.

Agreed.

[Darth Wong]

Please state the "danger" that hormones cause in "general". All you've done so far is hold up a boogy man and proclaim victory.

Fine, go ahead and take heavy steroid doses (or better yet, female HRT pills). After all, according to you there's no evidence that artificial hormone overdoses can cause harm.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Please state the "danger" that hormones cause in "general". All you've done so far is hold up a boogy man and proclaim victory.

Fine, go ahead and take heavy steroid doses (or better yet, female HRT pills). After all, according to you there's no evidence that artificial hormone overdoses can cause harm.

Yes, because that is OBVIOUSLY the same thing as your claim which is that hormones are INHERINANTLY dangerous, even in low doses.

[Darth Wong]

Fine, go ahead and take heavy steroid doses (or better yet, female HRT pills). After all, according to you there's no evidence that artificial hormone overdoses can cause harm.

Yes, because that is OBVIOUSLY the same thing as your claim which is that hormones are INHERINANTLY dangerous, even in low doses.

They are; every form of hormone therapy has associated dangers, which is why hormone therapies must be prescribed. And there was an OVERDOSE in this case (of a drug which is normally so powerful that it instantly forces the woman's body to go into labour), so your "low doses" argument goes out the window.

[Stormbringer]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS ZERO HARM?

BECAUSE THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF HARM!

The only alleged harm is the cerebral palsy which isn't linked to the hormone overdose. If there was damage done to this child because of the hormones don't you think some one might have noticed and said something?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

They are; every form of hormone therapy has associated dangers, which is why hormone therapies must be prescribed. And there was an OVERDOSE in this case (of a drug which is normally so powerful that it instantly forces the woman's body to go into labour), so your "low doses" argument goes out the window.

1. I never claimed that this case involved a low dose. I was responding to your claim that hormones are inherinatly dangerous- even in low doses.

2. There is no reason to suspect that this particular hormone (or even most hormones for that matter) would cause widespread and permenant damage after a single overdose. This is supported by everything we know about them chemically- namely that they have very specific role in the body and are incapable of doing "things" outside of this role.

[Darth Wong]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS ZERO HARM?

BECAUSE THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF HARM!

Appeal to ignorance fallacy. There is considerable evidence that hormones and for that matter, any drug administered to a newborn is dangerous. In fact, there is a risk of brain damage to an infant from any induced labour, even one that goes by the book for fuck's sake. So take your worthless assumptions and fallacies and shove them up your pompous ass. It is VERY difficult to tie an action to a particular form of damage in a single human case; you can't even conclusively prove that a lifetime of cigarette smoking caused a particular case of cancer.

The only alleged harm is the cerebral palsy which isn't linked to the hormone overdose.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF POTENTIAL HARM BESIDES CEREBRAL PALSY, FUCKTARD?

If there was damage done to this child because of the hormones don't you think some one might have noticed and said something?

Obviously, your knowledge of how the medical industry works is nonexistent. They do not go out of their way to inform you of contraindications, risks, and other potential side effects of a treatment at the time it is recommended to you. My son's doctor once prescribed a medication for a bladder infection that can cause FUCKING LIGAMENT DAMAGE in children (the pharmacist caught it and changed it to a less destructive drug), and he never thought to say anything.

And if you're asking whether the court case should have focused on something else, that was a decision of the lawyer, who went for the biggest possible verdict. Arguing that the kid might have some other, less measurable effect on his brain is not going to win you the big award that cerebral palsy will. But the medical evidence that treatment of newborns can be critical for their lifetime health is overwhelming, so don't pretend you've satisfied any burden of proof.

[tharkûn]

So you reject all of the medical evidence that hormone overdoses or even long-term low-level exposure can be harmful?

Could you quote the relevant studies to this particular drug? What I know of the drug makes it clear that excessive dosage leads to hypertonicity, uterine rupture, and blood loss in the mother. In the child it is associated with neonatal jaundice and retinal damage. Uterine motility of its own right can lead to a whole host of crap, but that is another story entirely.

Hormones are unique chemical compounds with blindingly diverse signal transduction pathways, comparing one hormone to another is about as informative as comparing aspirin and morphine. Seriously please tell me why in bloody hell effects associated with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline

have ANYTHING to do with effects associated with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

The observant will note that the former is a short chain amine on a hydroxylated benzene ring, the latter is a frikking peptide sequence. The same bloody thing is true of HRT hormones and pitocin - they are completely different classes of hormones.

What can be generally said of hormone activity is that it is generally describe by a the Michaelis-Menton equation where the hormone is the substrate. Given that this is a hyperbolic, bounded function, the body reaches a point where no further response is illicited.

Now some systems don't reach the saturation point before the patient dies, some curves have feedback, allosterics, and all other manner of nifty biological functions that make specific kinetic curves different - but most single dose hormones are pissed away before serious harm occurs.

Long term, low level exposure is NOT an issue here. The signal transduction pathway that causes cancer CANNOT function on single dosages. And again even here hormones are wonderfully diverse, some hormones have hard clinical data supporting their link to a decrease in cancer (among other benifits) with prolonged ingestion.

So what should happen in this case? First the criminal courts should determine if criminal negligance occurred ... in which case you bring the idiot up on charges; not hit his insurance company up for all it's worth.

Second you have a medical board look into the misconduct and award appropriate sentence. That may be a letter of reprimand, mandatory remedial courses, stripping of medical licensing, or referal back to the criminal system with recomendation for charges.

Lastly you go to civil court and establish legal responsibility and award recompense for damages suffered.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy. There is considerable evidence that hormones and for that matter, any drug administered to a newborn is dangerous. In fact, there is a risk of brain damage to an infant from any induced labour, even one that goes by the book for fuck's sake. So take your worthless assumptions and fallacies and shove them up your pompous ass.

BS. Do I really need to get out my neonatal pharmacology books and quote on drugs which have no TD-lo for neonatites?

Yes there is always risk for the infant in labor, so to is risk from driving home from the hospital the question is, was it preventable.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF POTENTIAL HARM BESIDES CEREBRAL PALSY, FUCKTARD?

Did the individual in question exhibit neonatal jaundice? How about retinal damage? What were his Apgar scores? Do you honestly think excessive neonatal dosages of pitocin have never occurred before? There is a body of evidence establishing the normal reactions associated with deleterious exposure to pitocin, exactly which of these occurred?

Obviously, your knowledge of how the medical industry works is nonexistent. They do not go out of their way to inform you of contraindications, risks, and other potential side effects of a treatment at the time it is recommended to you. My son's doctor once prescribed a medication for a bladder infection that can cause FUCKING LIGAMENT DAMAGE in children (the pharmacist caught it and changed it to a less destructive drug), and he never thought to say anything.

From what I hear of your healthcare providers, you really need to find somebody else ... and if none of em are better your whole healthcare system is RIDICIOUSLY screwed.

Do recall the name of the medication, I have a hunch?

And if you're asking whether the court case should have focused on something else, that was a decision of the lawyer, who went for the biggest possible verdict.

Which is the entire frikking problem. Did he establish any chain of cause and effect? Did any of the accepted clinical indications of deleterious exposure even occur?

But the medical evidence that treatment of newborns can be critical for their lifetime health is overwhelming, so don't pretend you've satisfied any burden of proof.

No, but how about you start by showing that pitocin adminstered to the MOTHER caused an overdose in the INFANT? There are several documented effects of overdosage of pitocin - fetal hypercapnia, hypoxia, jaundice - did any of them even merit comment? We know what pitocin does, we know its pharmcology and pharmokinetics; do you have any evidence showing basic overdose response?

Could you at least drop the BS psuedoscience of comparing unrelated hormones (estrogens and prostaglandins)? It is just about equivalent to saying what holds true for bronze holds true for steel because they are both alloys. It is piss poor science to draw conclusions from one based upon the other.

[Darth Wong]

Thank you for the long-winded pedantic demonstration of how much you know about medicine. Ooooh, I'm so impressed. But none of it proves that there was zero harm, or that medical mistakes involving drug overdoses should necessarily be treated as unworthy of any disciplinary action unless you can conclusively PROVE that someone was harmed.

Professionals must put the public welfare above their own interests, and medical professionals are increasingly ignorant of this ethical principle. An engineering malpractice case does not necessarily have to demonstrate that someone suffered serious injury in order to result in disciplinary action.

As for your questions about the specific drug in question, you know as well as I do that the article doesn't say what kind of drug was used, and some drugs are worse than others. However, that ambiguity hardly helps Stormbringer's case or yours, since HE IS MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY ZERO DAMAGE, and you are defending him. Learn to read. The lack of precise information in this article hardly helps support his positive claim.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Perhaps we shuld know somewhat more about the situation. For example, what dosage was actually given. That wuld help determine whether harm was possibly caused. For example, if the normal dosage is 5 ccs and the dosage given was 18, while an overdose, little harm would arise.

Here is an idea, how about we conslude that none of us has enough evidence to actually be able to take a position that akes sense. Or in other words, we need more data.

As for your questions about the specific drug in question, you know as well as I do that the article doesn't say what kind of drug was used, and some drugs are worse than others. However, that ambiguity hardly helps Stormbringer's case or yours, since HE IS MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY ZERO DAMAGE, and you are defending him. Learn to read. The lack of precise information in this article hardly helps support his positive claim.

There may have been harm, there may not have been harm. Either way, neither of you can logically come to any conclusion other than "I dont know" with the amount of information given in the article.

WIthout knowing the drug in question, the precise dosage given, and the circumstances under which it was administered, we cannot reach a conclusion whether or not this doctor deserved disciplinary action.

[tharkûn]

Thank you for the long-winded pedantic demonstration of how much you know about medicine. Ooooh, I'm so impressed. But none of it proves that there was zero harm, or that medical mistakes involving drug overdoses should necessarily be treated as unworthy of any disciplinary action unless you can conclusively PROVE that someone was harmed.

Thank you for completely missing the point. This is not an unknown substance. Overdoses have occurred, the effects are documented. Can you offer the evidence or not?

Disciplinary action takes place before a medical board, not in a civil lawsuit. These should be decided by the doctor's professional peers not whatever twelve good citizens happen to be sitting on the jury. When an engineer screws up who should decide how severe it is - other egineers or twelve quasi-random individuals?

As for your questions about the specific drug in question, you know as well as I do that the article doesn't say what kind of drug was used, and some drugs are worse than others.

The court brief reads as follows:
"This is a medical malpractice case in which Antonio Craig, who is now an adult, was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at age 13. He sued, claiming that that the health care professionals who attended his mother during his birth administered an overdose of oxytocin and that doctors failed to adequately monitor his fetal heart rate."

Pitocin is a brand name for oxytocin. Medical references will refer one to the other.

So again what indication is there that Antonio first received a deleterious dose? After you have evidenced that, what other harm did he suffer? If this is not the expected response to neonatal OD of pitocin, please elucidate why.

However, that ambiguity hardly helps Stormbringer's case or yours, since HE IS MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY ZERO DAMAGE, and you are defending him. Learn to read.

Do you think everyone pulled the phrase "oxytocin" out of their ass? The drug is known, its effects are known, and the claim is scientific BS. Comparing this hormone to estrogens is patent BS and you should know that. The chemical structures aren't remotely close to each other, nor is there significant overlap in the signal transduction pathways.

Clinical data suggests that if a neonatite was exposed to deleterious levels of pitocin certain symptoms should be expressed. Clinical data further elucidates what damage is done in such cases. Appealing to ignorance is fallicious, this is a known quantity hence extroidinary claims (some hitherto unknown effect, despite the ubiquitious use of the drug) require extroidinary proof.

Professionals must put the public welfare above their own interests, and medical professionals are increasingly ignorant of this ethical principle. An engineering malpractice case does not necessarily have to demonstrate that someone suffered serious injury in order to result in disciplinary action.

Who performs such disciplinary action? A civil court with a jury verdict or a professional board composed of egineers?

AD:

WIthout knowing the drug in question, the precise dosage given, and the circumstances under which it was administered, we cannot reach a conclusion whether or not this doctor deserved disciplinary action.

Pitocin, dosage was double standard (patient was doubled bagged).

The infant should minimal signs of fetal distress, hypoxia was not observed, neither brachycardia nor tachycardia were observed, apgar scores were normal, and subsequent siblings with both larger birth weights and crania were born normally (which makes it unlikely that Antonio had his head ground against his mother's pelvis). All accounts immediately subsequent to birth were normal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Double bagged, as in somehow given the drug twice, possibly in simple sleep deprived forgetfullness? Just to clear that up.

[tharkûn]

Double bagged, as in somehow given the drug twice, possibly in simple sleep deprived forgetfullness? Just to clear that up.

Given the drug twice at the same time, though the details are bit sketchy. Somebody is BSing through their teeth and my money is on the plaintiff.

[Darth Wong]

Disciplinary action takes place before a medical board, not in a civil lawsuit.

NO SHIT! At no point have I ever stated that this person should have won the lawsuit. Please dispense with the strawman.

The court brief reads as follows:

"This is a medical malpractice case in which Antonio Craig, who is now an adult, was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at age 13. He sued, claiming that that the health care professionals who attended his mother during his birth administered an overdose of oxytocin and that doctors failed to adequately monitor his fetal heart rate."

Ah, you looked up the court brief. That helps illuminate things. The possible side-effects of an oxytocin overdose are documented at http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic3/oxytocin_od.htm

So again what indication is there that Antonio first received a deleterious dose?

I don't know, because I haven't seen the court documents. I'm basing my arguments on the OP article, just like Stormbringer is. It's always possible that further details will reveal that nothing untoward whatsoever happened in the delivery.

However, it seems highly unlikely that they'd get away with such a ridiculous lie as to simply say there was an overdose when there was none, even with a layperson jury.

Do you think everyone pulled the phrase "oxytocin" out of their ass?

Until you quoted the court brief, there was no indication that oxytocin was even used. It's not the only drug which can be used for labour inducement.

The drug is known, its effects are known, and the claim is scientific BS. Comparing this hormone to estrogens is patent BS and you should know that.

The claim that it causes cerebral palsy is BS. That doesn't mean an overdose is necessarily harmless, for fuck's sake. And the fact that it's a different type of hormone than estrogen is obvious and has no bearing on the point I made earlier; at no point did I claim that estrogen and oxytocin are the same thing, so please dispense with the sophistry.

The chemical structures aren't remotely close to each other, nor is there significant overlap in the signal transduction pathways.

Please look up "pedantic" in a dictionary.

Clinical data suggests that if a neonatite was exposed to deleterious levels of pitocin certain symptoms should be expressed. Clinical data further elucidates what damage is done in such cases. Appealing to ignorance is fallicious, this is a known quantity hence extroidinary claims (some hitherto unknown effect, despite the ubiquitious use of the drug) require extroidinary proof.

Sorry, but there are known, published harmful side-effects of oxytocin overdose.

Professionals must put the public welfare above their own interests, and medical professionals are increasingly ignorant of this ethical principle. An engineering malpractice case does not necessarily have to demonstrate that someone suffered serious injury in order to result in disciplinary action.

Who performs such disciplinary action? A civil court with a jury verdict or a professional board composed of egineers?

Hey dumb-fuck, for the second time, I never said Craig should have won the court case. If you can't be bothered to respond to the argument I make instead of one you invent for your own convenience, don't waste my time with your bullshit.

The infant should minimal signs of fetal distress, hypoxia was not observed, neither brachycardia nor tachycardia were observed, apgar scores were normal, and subsequent siblings with both larger birth weights and crania were born normally (which makes it unlikely that Antonio had his head ground against his mother's pelvis). All accounts immediately subsequent to birth were normal.

Assuming you retrieved this from the court documents somewhere, this would indeed suggest that any harm done was below the threshold of detectability. However, if the doctor did indeed carelessly administer an overdose of a drug which can potentially harm the infant, then he put the patient at risk via his incompetence, even if he got away with it this time. At least in engineering, simply putting someone at risk is considered a serious problem; the risk doesn't have to become a death or serious injury to be of significant import.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Double bagged, as in somehow given the drug twice, possibly in simple sleep deprived forgetfullness? Just to clear that up.

Given the drug twice at the same time, though the details are bit sketchy. Somebody is BSing through their teeth and my money is on the plaintiff.

That simply shouldnt have happened, as in, almost couldnt.

[Darth Wong]

Moral of this story: according to the apologists, serious incompetence is not a cause for professional discipline in the medical industry as long as you get lucky and no one can prove you maimed anybody with it. A hospital which accidentally drugs somebody twice is perfectly safe, and no precedent need be set that such carelessness is not acceptable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Moral of this story: according to the apologists, serious incompetence is not a cause for professional discipline in the medical industry as long as you get lucky and no one can prove you maimed anybody with it. A hospital which accidentally drugs somebody twice is perfectly safe, and no precedent need be set that such carelessness is not acceptable.

I would go more with "Stuff like that happens in the delivery room, no harm was caused, and there is no reason to raise malpractice insrance costs for every doctor in that hospital because of it, thus raising the costs of medical care. Not to mention punishing many many emloyees for the mistake of one or two people."

But then again, there does need to be some accountability, and methinks an investigation needs to be done to determine exactly who was at faul, and then suspend their medical liscence for a period of time.

[Tsyroc]

Moral of this story: according to the apologists, serious incompetence is not a cause for professional discipline in the medical industry as long as you get lucky and no one can prove you maimed anybody with it. A hospital which accidentally drugs somebody twice is perfectly safe, and no precedent need be set that such carelessness is not acceptable.

It's been my experience that hospitals try to keep things like giving people extra or over doses of things very quiet. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of disciplining people who make the errors even when the hospital ends up paying for malpractice suits.

My hospital tends to settle with people, but then in the cases I've been aware of the hospital has been at fault or wasn't going to be able to sufficiently prove otherwise to a jury. In that case the result maybe would have happened anyway but since there were errors on the side of hospital personel we just paid.

[tharkûn]

Ah, you looked up the court brief.

No I've been following the case and have known it was pitocin before appeals. I just quoted the brief rather than deal with BS.

Ah, you looked up the court brief. That helps illuminate things. The possible side-effects of an oxytocin overdose are documented at http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic3/oxytocin_od.htm

Thank you, I have my own references, including the official ones required by the government. WHICH OF THESE SIDE EFFECTS WERE OBSERVED?

I don't know, because I haven't seen the court documents. I'm basing my arguments on the OP article, just like Stormbringer is. It's always possible that further details will reveal that nothing untoward whatsoever happened in the delivery.

However, it seems highly unlikely that they'd get away with such a ridiculous lie as to simply say there was an overdose when there was none, even with a layperson jury.

You are missing the point. I adminster a drug to your pregnat wife, SHE experiences an overdose. It does not follow that YOUR SON would experience the same overdose. There is this little thing called the placental barrier, drugs administered to the mother do not automatically get administered to neonatites in the same dosage.

However, it seems highly unlikely that they'd get away with such a ridiculous lie as to simply say there was an overdose when there was none, even with a layperson jury.

Don't bet on it. I'll be damned if I can figure out how in hell the double bagging occurred, but it went over with the jury.

Again nothing was administered to the child directly, only through the mother. It is not trivial to assume that an overdose administered to the mother will pass to the child.

I don't know, because I haven't seen the court documents. I'm basing my arguments on the OP article, just like Stormbringer is. It's always possible that further details will reveal that nothing untoward whatsoever happened in the delivery.

Everything I've read aside from the dubious hired gun thrown out by the court backs Stormbringer. Everything I know about pharmacology backs Stormbringer. The child's treating neurologist, backed by MRI and a whole slew of informatio, backs Stormbringer. If you want to claim that some hitherto unknown overdosage effect is causing problems for this boy, that is an extroidinary claim.

The claim that it causes cerebral palsy is BS. That doesn't mean an overdose is necessarily harmless, for fuck's sake. And the fact that it's a different type of hormone than estrogen is obvious and has no bearing on the point I made earlier; at no point did I claim that estrogen and oxytocin are the same thing, so please dispense with the sophistry.

Then why in hell were you bringing up HRT? The effects of pitocin are well known and it is not harmless. However when bad things happen, there are characteristic symptoms and diagnostic obersvations that are COMPLETELY LACKING IN THIS CASE (note this is NOT disputed in the case, the plaintiff's hired guns conceed this).

Sorry, but there are known, published harmful side-effects of oxytocin overdose.

Great show me a child who undegoes hypoxia without showing tachychardia or brachycardia. Show me pelvic grinding when later siblings with bigger heads don't evidence it. Show me trauma induced brain damage with normal apgar scores.

Yes this stuff can have bad effects, but IT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. All of the KNOWN bad effects have diagnosis and should have shown any of a number of indicators that BLOODY DIDN'T come up.

We can diagnosis these side-effects, the standard signals SIMPLY WERE NOT THERE.

Assuming you retrieved this from the court documents somewhere, this would indeed suggest that any harm done was below the threshold of detectability.

http://www.courts.michigan.gov

googling within that site turns up all the documents you could want, bigass mind numbing PDF files of mostly worthless crap, but hey feel free to read them and find the same things I'm saying.

But I have to ask this, how in HELL would you establish that you didn't cause harm below the threshold of detectability? What possible burden of proof would I have to meet that no harm was done, even below the threshold of detectability.

However, if the doctor did indeed carelessly administer an overdose of a drug which can potentially harm the infant, then he put the patient at risk via his incompetence, even if he got away with it this time.

The doctor didn't administer the drug, that would be the nurse. The doctor is only being sued because he is the nurses' boss.

It buggers the mind to think how you double bag a patient in these circumstances, but hey what would I know

The doctor got away with it, even though no clinical evidence of neonatal overdose is forthcoming

At least in engineering, simply putting someone at risk is considered a serious problem; the risk doesn't have to become a death or serious injury to be of significant import.

Frankly I'm betting the doctor never put anyone at risk (more than normal). It just seems whack to double bag with the pump.

AD:

That simply shouldnt have happened, as in, almost couldnt.

As I said, someone is BSing and you know where my money is.