non-consensual removal of IUD results in lawsuit
Found and X-Posted from community: vaginapagina
Thought this would be on interest to the readers here.
ALBUQUERQUE (CN) - A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that "having the IUD come out was a good thing," because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
The patient sued Presbyterian Health Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona in Federal Court.
The plaintiff says she went to Rio Rancho to have the strings on her IUD shortened.
The complaint states: "As soon as Defendant Olona began speaking to (the plaintiff), she questioned her about her choice of contraception.
"As Defendant Olona began the procedure, (the plaintiff) felt Olona pull on the strings of the IUD. (The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.
"As that happened, Defendant Olona stated, 'Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came.' She then explained, 'I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly.'
"Olona then stated, 'having the IUD come out was a good thing.' She asked (the plaintiff) if she wanted to hear her 'take' on the situation. Without receiving a response, Defendant Olona stated, 'I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.'
"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'
"At this point, Defendant Olona advised that (the plaintiff) needed to take a pregnancy test. (The plaintiff) did, and the test was negative.
"Defendant Olona told (the plaintiff) that is was better that she did not have the IUD because she could now use a "non-abortion" form of contraception. Defendant Olona suggested the deprovera (depo) [sic] shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD."
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence. She is represented by Ryan Villa with the Law Office of Robert Cooper.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/14/Woman_Says_Anti-Abortion_Nurse_Removed_IUD_Without_Permission_Then_Lectured_Her.htm
****
So its not only disturbing because it violated this woman's body, but it leads me to wonder if this will hold up in court on the side of the nurse, because of new health care laws. Someone had posted an article regarding that about a month ago, about how Bush had signed into law a certain immunity clause (or something to that effect here:http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/3195702.html ) regarding health care providers and their own personal morals, ie: if the physician/nurse/etc feels that it goes against their own personal ethics, they can choose to outright refuse treatment. Because this nurse obviously had moral issues regarding the method of birth control, do you think that it would stand to reason that under these new protections, she would not be held liable for this type of action? This would be an interesting case to follow up on and if I can in the future, I will post updates.
(sorry not a well thought out reflection, but its 3 am :)
Thought this would be on interest to the readers here.
ALBUQUERQUE (CN) - A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that "having the IUD come out was a good thing," because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
The patient sued Presbyterian Health Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona in Federal Court.
The plaintiff says she went to Rio Rancho to have the strings on her IUD shortened.
The complaint states: "As soon as Defendant Olona began speaking to (the plaintiff), she questioned her about her choice of contraception.
"As Defendant Olona began the procedure, (the plaintiff) felt Olona pull on the strings of the IUD. (The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.
"As that happened, Defendant Olona stated, 'Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came.' She then explained, 'I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly.'
"Olona then stated, 'having the IUD come out was a good thing.' She asked (the plaintiff) if she wanted to hear her 'take' on the situation. Without receiving a response, Defendant Olona stated, 'I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.'
"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'
"At this point, Defendant Olona advised that (the plaintiff) needed to take a pregnancy test. (The plaintiff) did, and the test was negative.
"Defendant Olona told (the plaintiff) that is was better that she did not have the IUD because she could now use a "non-abortion" form of contraception. Defendant Olona suggested the deprovera (depo) [sic] shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD."
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence. She is represented by Ryan Villa with the Law Office of Robert Cooper.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/14/Woman_Says_Anti-Abortion_Nurse_Removed_IUD_Without_Permission_Then_Lectured_Her.htm
****
So its not only disturbing because it violated this woman's body, but it leads me to wonder if this will hold up in court on the side of the nurse, because of new health care laws. Someone had posted an article regarding that about a month ago, about how Bush had signed into law a certain immunity clause (or something to that effect here:http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/3195702.html ) regarding health care providers and their own personal morals, ie: if the physician/nurse/etc feels that it goes against their own personal ethics, they can choose to outright refuse treatment. Because this nurse obviously had moral issues regarding the method of birth control, do you think that it would stand to reason that under these new protections, she would not be held liable for this type of action? This would be an interesting case to follow up on and if I can in the future, I will post updates.
(sorry not a well thought out reflection, but its 3 am :)