# Doctor sued; has to pay for child's upbringing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938 "2003-07-16T18:12:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![plain\_jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@plain\_jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plain_jane)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/21 "2003-07-17T03:31:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Epimetheus \* > \*\*Why don’t they just make the doctor raise the kid? > \*\* No kidding. Might as well demand visitation rights at least. On a serious note, I do agree the doctor was obligated to check the right fallopian tube and failed to do so. However, the sum the couple has been awarded is excessive. Abortion and adoption were options if they felt so strongly they could not have another child. (Enough to sue the pants off the doctor, I mean.) Not to mention this: how is that child going to feel, knowing he was so unwanted that his parents sued the doctor over his existence? ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/22 "2003-07-17T03:32:07Z")
There is always a risk of failure of a medical procedure. From my understanding, the right fallopian tube was removed when the patient was young, but the ovary remained. In this case, the ova travelled from the ovary, which remained after the operation, across the pelvis to the clipped left fallipian. The chances of this happening are extremely slim. IMO, the risk was so insignificant that the surgeon should not have been found negligent. This case is going to make it impossible to obtain medical malpractice insurance, which is practically the case now. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/23 "2003-07-17T03:41:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stpauler \* > **My other big point (and one I’m sticking by) is the abortion/adoption argument. They don’t want any kids and were set by that. Set to the point where the devalue human life down to an acceptable price… …but just slapping a sticker tag of about $100K is good and solves it all…now that seems callous.** Looking at the picture in the above article I note that the woman looks middle-aged. Looking around at some [other articles](http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/qld/metqld-17jul2003-3.htm) I note that the child was born when Mrs Melchior was 45 years old. A unexpected child at that age throws a lot of wrenches into the works. She’ll be beyond retirement age when it is time for him to go to college! They may have desperately NEEDED additional monies to be sure they could provide a good home for him and still have a little money to provide for their other children and retire. A doctor screwing up and them getting another mouth to feed in their declining years is a major impact to their life and the life they are trying to provide to their children. This may well have been a cost they could not easily absorb. Speculation about them buying an RV or just looking to pad their own bank account seems pretty harsh. They didn’t win a million-dollar plus settlement or anything. I’d guess that most of the money actually WILL go towards caring for and raising the child. Now, I’ve also done a bit of research on abortion law in Australia. [Check this out](http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/145/145p7.htm) > [@](#): > > Abortion is illegal in most states. In NSW, the Crimes Act, which outlaws abortion, was passed in 1900. Liberal interpretations of the law have widened access, but the recent ruling by Justice Newman has highlighted the fact that abortion remains illegal and could result in police prosecution. Basically abortions are only legal if the mother’s life is in jepoardy. Not all cases are prosecuted, but are you going to argue that getting an illegal abortion should still be preferable **to them** as opposed having and raising the kid? > [@](#): > > \*\*But really, what it all comes down to is the Dr is going to have to probably pay about $10,000.00 deductible, his insurance rates will go up a bit and you’ll have a very scarred kid once he finds out that he was so unwanted that his parents had to be paid off to keep him. (Or at least that’s the way it’d be in the USA, not sure about AUS) \*\* As mentioned above, I don’t see this as bribe money. I really see this award as what the family will need to raise a child they became pregnant with as a result of the negligence of the doctor failing to render her sterile. The costs of raising the child plus ~105,000 Aus(68,710.00 USD)(this is the reduced amount for damages awarded by the high court, down from 200,000(130,000 US) awarded by the lower court) for pain and suffering. Another interesting little [tidbit](http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6762224%255E1702,00.html) > [@](#): > > She suffered potentially fatal blood clots as a result of the pregnancy and birth, which occurred five years after a tubal ligation procedure performed by Dr Stephen Cattanach at Redland Hospital near Brisbane in March 1992. Costs of raising the child, plus ~69K for damages. As to the effect of the news on the child? Tons of kids were unplanned pregnancies. I was an unplanned pregnancy, in fact I’d go so far as to say I was an unwanted pregnancy, given that I know I was a birth control baby(condom). I don’t consider myself “very scarred”. My parents loved me, even if I wasn’t what they had planned for. I see no reason why this one fact would necessitate difficulties for the child. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/24 "2003-07-17T04:12:07Z")
**Mgtman** that link is misleading. “In Australia abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures, with an estimated 80,000 surgical terminations of pregnancy performed annually, at a rate of about 19.6 per 1000 women of reproductive age. About two-thirds of pregnancies are unplanned, and about one-third of women in Australia have had an abortion by the end of their reproductive years. Ninety-five per cent are performed in the first trimester, the first 12 weeks.” From [http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue16/emanuel.html](http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue16/emanuel.html) ps I will check that bit about the ova crossing the pelvis, which I wrote previously. I heard an expert witness for the defence state something to the effect on the radio. I am not 100% on the specifics at this stage. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/25 "2003-07-17T05:23:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > \*\ ***Mgtman** that link is misleading. > > “In Australia abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures, with an estimated 80,000 surgical terminations of pregnancy performed annually, at a rate of about 19.6 per 1000 women of reproductive age. About two-thirds of pregnancies are unplanned, and about one-third of women in Australia have had an abortion by the end of their reproductive years. Ninety-five per cent are performed in the first trimester, the first 12 weeks.” > > From [http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue16/emanuel.html](http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue16/emanuel.html) \*\* Exactly. It is certainly true that on-demand abortion is still officially illegal in Australia, but i grew up there and abortion has, in my lifetime, always been quite readily available. At least two of my ex-girlfriends in Australia have had abortions (not to me–i’ve always been very careful), and neither of them reported any trouble in getting one. The laws against abortions contain exceptions for the health of the mother, and these are generally interpreted very liberally by the medical profession. However, as **antechinus** ’s link shows, there have been a number of legal hurdles placed in the way of abortion in the past few years, mainly at the instigation of conservative politicians. This is why the fight to officially legalize abortion is such an important one, IMO. Still, one thing that is much less prevalent in Australia than in the United States–the non-legislative pressures against those seeking abortion. At an abortion clinic near where i lived in Sydney, you would very occasionally see four or five people holding signs decrying the “baby-killers,” but such sights are very rare. And often people passing in cars would yell at them to get a life. **Antechinus** ’s linked article points out that, even when abortion is legal, other pressures can still make getting one very difficult. In the US, for instance > [@](#): > > Clinic violence is real, with shootings, threats, arson attacks, acid injections, stalking, advertising of clinic workers’ home addresses and the issuing of “wanted” posters for abortion providers having a real impact. Numerous providers have stopped working because of the threat to themselves and their families. > > Real estate agents refusing to lease premises for abortion services, banks refusing loans for the establishment of clinics, contractors refusing to work on buildings for abortion services are all a part of the obstruction that has been reported under the impact of a well-organised anti-choice campaign. > > Local council regulations have at times gone to great extremes, for example, by imposing requirements for door sizes and floor space that make it impossible to find and adapt premises for use as clinics. Some local authorities have even gone to the extent of requiring the presence of blood for transfusion on the premises (an unnecessary and expensive logistical nightmare) and, more bizarre yet, neonatal resuscitation equipment. > > Eighty-three per cent of US counties have no abortion providers, and this includes half of all metropolitan centres. Women who rely on state or federal funding for medical care can’t get their abortions paid for in thirty-eight states. In thirty of these, this is the case even if the pregnancy results from incest or rape. A good friend of mine lives in Austin, Texas, and a couple she knows who run an abortion clinic frequently find “wanted” posters up in their neighbourhood with their names and addresses on them. This is, or at least was when i last lived there, unthinkable in Australia. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/26 "2003-07-17T06:11:05Z")
Not sure how much more effort I think this sidetrack is worth, as noted above, the ability of a person to mitigate the damage caused by a doctors negligence does not absolve the doctor of responsibility. This is especially true if exercising that ability could have distressing emotional/physical/mental side effects. Throw in dubious legality there as well. The couple did absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral by choosing to have and care for the child. From the facts in the articles I’ve read it looks very much like the Doctor did something wrong by failing to check the other tube. If **antechinus** has some more info on the case, evidence that the ova took an alternate route to the uterus and the tubal ligation WAS properly performed, that would certainly change things. No negligence in that case. I have a friend who was a post-ligation baby. It can happen, but the evidence in the articles I’ve read all took the “he only operated on one tube” bit as canon. New evidence is always welcome. Can we agree that there were legitimate reasons, possibly the dubious legal situation surrounding abortion in Australia, possibly religious objections, possibly concientious objections, etc. which would lead the couple not to abort? Can we agree they had no obligation to abort? Can we agree that their decision to keep the baby, five years after the surgery, had no impact on weather or not the doctor did a good/complete job five years earlier? It would seem to me that the fact remains, regardless of their motives for having and keeping the baby, the decision to have and keep the baby does NOT absolve the doctor of responsibility for his alleged negligence. They signed a contract with him to render her infertile. Assuming the original facts are true and he only operated on one side, then this seems to be, and the courts have found it to be, negligence. Fact established, pay the piper. They were under absolutely NO obligation to take any action to avert the pregnancy, nor should they have been expected to. It would seem to me that, even with the implications for more malpractice suits and insurance hikes, the opposite verdict would have sent a nasty message as well. If you go to a doctor for sterlization and they screw it up, you better abort/adopt out the baby or you’re stuck footing the bill for a worthless sterilization operation, a pregancy and birth, and the offspring the sterilization was supposed to prevent. That would seem to absolve the doctor of far too much responsibility IMHO. The majority opinion pretty much nailed it as far as I’m concerned. " Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/27 "2003-07-17T06:30:31Z")
Actually, as an addendum to my previous post, I also found [this article](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s904490.htm) which gives some of the evidence **antechinus** was mentioning. > [@](#): > > Ms Melchior approached Brisbane gynaecologist, Doctor Stephen Cattanach, for a tubal ligation. She told him she’d already had her right fallopian tube removed when she was 15, so he only operated on her left. > > Five years later Jordan Melchior was born. > > Brisbane obstetrician, Dr David Molloy. > > DAVID MOLLOY: The patient had been mistaken. Her ovary had been removed on the right-hand side, but not the tube, and an egg had somehow come from the left ovary, crossed the pelvis, come up under all the adhesions and scarring and managed to find its way through a very badly damaged right tube into the uterus. And I mean, the chances of that pregnancy happening are, it was a miracle pregnancy. This does shake up the negligence question. Doesn’t seem to have any implications for the case if neglicence could still be proven however. So, again it is time to ask the docs on the SDMB. How about this? Looks like the patient didn’t have a ovary on the right hand side, so should the tube have been dealt with? Assuming medical records could be checked and it established that the right hand ovary was missing and the tube badly damaged, would it still be negligent to ignore that side? Would working on that tube have prevented the egg from crossing the pelvis and getting into the uterus through the damaged, but apparently still-operable, tube? As I said, if it was still negligence, the court did the right thing. If it was not negligence, then the court did the wrong thing. Doctors aren’t gods and shouldn’t be held to infalliable standards. If he exercised due dilligence, he discharged his duty and shouldn’t be held accountable for “miraculous” changes in his patients condition. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/28 "2003-07-17T10:13:01Z")
A very difficult case. And yet another reason for Australia’s increasingly desperate doctors to avoid obstetrics. There is so much birth-defect related litigation in Australia now that many doctors refuse to do obstetrics, because they just can’t afford the compulsory liability insurance premiums. This means that women living out in the country or bush have to travel many hours to city hospitals to give birth. This case won’t help. There were two ways of looking at this child: a tragic and disruptive mistake, or somewhat of a miracle. I can see how the couple were angry and let down, but every cloud has a silver lining, which surely in this case is a whole and healthy child. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/29 "2003-07-17T16:03:56Z")
Update. While i continue to agree that the doctor in this case seems to have fucked up on a number of levels, i’m feeling less and less sympathetic towards this woman every time i read something about the case. For those wondering whether she had some sort of moral or religious objection to abortion, [here’s](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/1058035139251.html) your answer: > [@](#): > > But Mrs Melchior - who refused to talk to the _Herald because_, her lawyer’s spokeswoman said, she had an agreement with the Seven Network - told _Today Tonight_ that if she had not wanted Jordan, she “would have terminated the pregnancy”. > > She had sued because “I’m sick and tired of people getting away with murder . . . I’m tired of the underdog being mistreated . . . we’re Aussies, we’ve got to stand up and be counted for.” So, she _does_ want the child, and if she hadn’t then she would have had an abortion. I agree that this does not really bear on whether the doctor performed his duties correctly or not, but i think it should have some bearing on whether he has to pay for eighteen years of the child’s upbringing. And the second paragraph strikes me as little more than pitiful whining. I know that there’s a strong tradition of Australian egalitarianism that supports the “underdog,” but the accusation of “getting away with murder” is rather hyperbolic, and her pathetic attempt to appeal to “Aussie” sentiment is really rather unbecoming. It also seems that she’s not content with the money from the lawsuit, either. For those (lucky people) unfamiliar with the world of Australian current affairs programs, _Today Tonight_ is notorious for shoddy reporting, sensationalism, and, in cases like this, checkbook journalism. That’s why the woman wouldn’t speak to the newspaper, because when these current affairs programs pay for stories, they insert an exclusivity clause in the contract that prevents the person from talking to other media outlets. Whatever sympathy i have for people generally drops considerably when they whore themselves out to the media for money and publicity. By the way, if anyone feels like wading through the whole text of the Australian High Court’s decision, it can be found [here](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/38.html). **QtM** and others might be interested in the reasons for a finding of negligence in the original trial: > [@](#): > > In 1996, at the age of 44, Mrs Melchior discovered that she was pregnant. In 1997, she gave birth to a son, Jordan. It turned out that, contrary to her belief, her right fallopian tube had not been removed. The trial judge found that, by reason of certain aspects of her condition, it was not negligent of the doctor to have failed to observe that at the time of the sterilisation procedure. The finding of negligence was based upon a conclusion that Dr Cattanach had too readily and uncritically accepted his patient’s assertion that her right fallopian tube had been removed, that he should have advised her to have that specifically investigated, and that he should have warned her that, if she was wrong about that, there was a risk that she might conceive. The case was decided as one of negligent advice and failure to warn. > > \ > > In 1967, when Mrs Melchior was aged 15, she underwent an appendectomy. The surgical notes indicated that, in the course of the operation, her right ovary was found to be filled with a blood clot and was removed; there was no abnormality in the left ovary or either fallopian tube and those organs were left intact. Mrs Melchior had been told by her mother that an ovary had been removed. > > \ > > Holmes J found that Dr Cattanach was negligent after the sterilisation procedure in failing to inform Mrs Melchior of various matters. The first was that the oral history she gave of the removal of the right fallopian tube in 1967 had not been positively confirmed during the sterilisation procedure. The second was that, if the fallopian tube were present, there was a ten-fold increase in the risk of her falling pregnant than was usual after the performance of the sterilisation procedure. The third was that an available procedure, an hysterosalpingogram, was likely to disclose the existence of a functioning fallopian tube. > > The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of negligence against Dr Cattanach and the conclusion that his negligence was the probable cause of Mrs Melchior’s pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/30 "2003-07-17T18:02:21Z")
Hmm, the woman is starting to look like a bitch. Still don’t think that has any bearing on the Dr’s responsibility. As noted earlier, if I throw a rock at your head, the fact that you saw it coming and had a chance to duck doesn’t absolve me of responsibility for the damage caused by my actions. Courts don’t have any kind of rules that say defendants can be let off the hook if the plaintiff is a money-grubbing media whoring bitch. If she was actually damaged, then she deserves compensation. As I noted earlier, as a direct result of the doctor’s alleged negligence the patient now has suffered the following effects. [ul][li]Footed the bill for, and undergone the pain and suffering of undergoing and recovering from a worthless sterilization procedure[_]Undergone the pain and suffering of carrying and birthing a child as well as the expense of the pregnancy and delivery.[_]Paid nine years of expenses for the child so far with another nine to come.Suffered life-threatening blood clots as a complication of the preganacy[/ul]The simple fact is that she did absolutely nothing wrong. She was under no obligation OF ANY KIND to correct the results of the doctor’s mistake by having an abortion or giving the child up for adoption.[/li] Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/31 "2003-07-17T18:18:20Z")
Steven, I ceratinly agree that the doctor’s errors are not somehow wiped out by the woman’s current behaviour. In fact, i think i said as much in my previous post. I would just like to suggest your stone-throwing analogy and your last sentence might present something of a problem for your argument. You say: > [@](#): > > **She was under no obligation OF ANY KIND to correct the results of the doctor’s mistake by having an abortion or giving the child up for adoption.** I would agree with this if she had a moral or religious objection to abortion, but she said that if she didn’t want the kid, she would have had the pregnancy terminated. To return to the stone-throwing analogy, you might be right that my failure to duck does not absolve you from responsibility for throwing the rock. However, if i stand there and refuse to allow the medics to patch my head, insisting that i would prefer to bleed, should you be held responsible when i die from blood loss? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/32 "2003-07-17T19:15:56Z")
I think we’re torturing the analogy a bit. Here is how I map the situation in this case to the analogy. Throwing the rock -\> negligence during the ligation Not ducking -\> choosing not to have an abortion/adopt out Getting bashed in the face -\> damages the doctor is responsible for The choice to have and keep the baby was already covered. Adding the “stand there and bleed to death” bit and mapping it to a choice that was already covered doesn’t make sense to me. If you want to add that bit then I would like to note that the doctor should pay for the costs of the medics treatment of your injuries. If she had ducked she wouldn’t have cost him much, but she didn’t, so he’s got more to pay out. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/33 "2003-07-17T19:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > \*\*Throwing the rock -\> negligence during the ligation > Not ducking -\> choosing not to have an abortion/adopt out > Getting bashed in the face -\> damages the doctor is responsible for > > \*\* Ahh, the one thing missing is at the beginning: Taunting for the rock to be thrown-\>saying that one tube had been “fixed” I’m not saying that she was asking to get pregnant, but she is responsible in part for what’s happened. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/34 "2003-07-17T20:58:51Z")
“The surgical notes indicated that, in the course of the operation, her right ovary was found to be filled with a blood clot and was removed; there was no abnormality in the left ovary or either fallopian tube and those organs were left intact.” Even the surgical notes indicated it was removed? Maybe she should be suing the original doctor who gave her the appendectomy and indicated the he had removed her ovary, when in fact, he had not. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/35 "2003-07-17T21:20:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by autz \* > \*\*“The surgical notes indicated that, in the course of the operation, her right ovary was found to be filled with a blood clot and was removed; there was no abnormality in the left ovary or either fallopian tube and those organs were left intact.” > > Even the surgical notes indicated it was removed? Maybe she should be suing the original doctor who gave her the appendectomy and indicated the he had removed her ovary, when in fact, he had not. \*\* Actually, the right ovary was removed. However, the doctor who performed the tubal ligation believed that the right fallopian tube had also been removed, when in fact it was still present. When he performed the ligation, he did not see a right ovary or fallopian tube, and so concluded that neither were present. Note that the earlier surgical notes that you quoted above state that _only_ the right ovary was removed. It was the patient herself who told the doctor that the fallopian tube was gone. I’ll let the High Court decision take up the story from there: > [@](#): > > The right fallopian tube had however, been obscured by bowel adhesions resulting from the surgery in 1967. As the first appellant was unaware of its existence, he applied a clip to the left fallopian tube only. He did not see the first respondent again, but was the author of a letter (which came to be signed by the medical superintendent of the second appellant) to the first respondent’s general practitioner. In it he described the procedure and its apparent outcome, although he did make one obvious mistake by a reference to the application of a clip to the right tube. The letter was not brought to the attention of the respondents. > > In November 1996, at the age of 44, the first respondent fell pregnant. She bore a healthy son, again following a Caesarean section, on 29 May 1997. Expert representatives of the parties were present at the birth. > > After the delivery the uterus was moved outside the abdominal cavity. At first, all that could be seen were the adhesions of the bowel to the uterus. After dissection however, it became apparent that the right fallopian tube was present. It was convoluted and compressed, and turned almost 180 degrees back upon itself. It was attached by adhesions to its own supporting structures and to the uterus itself, and was displaced towards the uterus from its normal position. By a similar procedure the left fallopian tube was viewed. It could be seen to be effectively ligated by an appropriately placed Filshie clip. > > In September 1997, four months after the birth, the first respondent underwent a hysterosalpingogram, a procedure in which dye is inserted into the uterus under pressure and the results are observed on x-ray. It showed that the right fallopian tube was patent. The consensus of medical opinion was that the first respondent had conceived by transmigration of an ovum from the left ovary to the right fallopian tube. At the time of the trial the child was healthy, active, normal in all respects, and a valued member of the family. It seems to me that an unfortunate set of cirumstances conspired against this doctor, but that he could have avoided all his problems by conducting a hysterosalpingogram–apparently a routine procedure in such cases–before performing the ligation. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/36 "2003-07-17T22:10:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stpauler \* > \*\*Ahh, the one thing missing is at the beginning: > Taunting for the rock to be thrown-\>saying that one tube had been “fixed” \*\* This is getting kind of ridiculous, we have absolutely no evidence that the patient deliberately fed the doctor false information about her medical history. How this is akin to taunting someone to cause harm to you I simply don’t know. Still, for the sake of arguement, if we want to add that part, then we should add the corrolary to that point. Taunting -\> saying the tube had been removed Losing temper -\> believing the patient instead of double-checking Throwing the rock -\> only operating on one side Not dodging -\> not having an abortion Bleeding profusely -\> needing cash to raise the kid Medics binding wounds -\> getting the cash to raise the kid Paying the medics -\> the doctor’s punishment for losing his temper Doctors aren’t allowed to lose their temper. What he did, according to the court and in my layman’s opinion, was fail to do due dilligence in inspecting the other tube. This seems to be a classic instance of malpractice. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/37 "2003-07-17T22:27:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > \*\* What he did, according to the court and in my layman’s opinion, was fail to do due dilligence in inspecting the other tube. This seems to be a classic instance of malpractice. > \*\* “It turned out that, contrary to her belief, her right fallopian tube had not been removed. The trial judge found that, by reason of certain aspects of her condition, it was not negligent of the doctor to have failed to observe that at the time of the sterilisation procedure.” Even the Australian High Court doesn’t agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/38 "2003-07-17T22:58:06Z")
I wasn’t talking about limiting that due dilligence to only the operation procedure. A test beforehand, specifically a hysterosalpingogram, would have been considered due dilligence. Then the doctor would have known that there was still an operable fallopian tube on the right hand side before he went in. The finding went something like this > [@](#): > > Holmes J found that Dr Cattanach was negligent after the sterilisation procedure in failing to inform Mrs Melchior of various matters. The first was that the oral history she gave of the removal of the right fallopian tube in 1967 had not been positively confirmed during the sterilisation procedure. The second was that, if the fallopian tube were present, there was a ten-fold increase in the risk of her falling pregnant than was usual after the performance of the sterilisation procedure. The third was that an available procedure, an hysterosalpingogram, was likely to disclose the existence of a functioning fallopian tube. Just because he might not have been in a position to easily see it during the operation on the other tube doesn’t mean he should have simply taken her word for it that it was gone. Failure of due dilligence, like I said. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/39 "2003-07-17T23:29:58Z")
Thanks **mhendo**. Here is the source for others. Section 273 > [@](#): > > 1. In September 1997, four months after the birth, the first respondent underwent a hysterosalpingogram, a procedure in which dye is inserted into the uterus under pressure and the results are observed on x-ray. It showed that the right fallopian tube was patent. The consensus of medical opinion was that the first respondent had conceived by transmigration of an ovum from the left ovary to the right fallopian tube. At the time of the trial the child was healthy, active, normal in all respects, and a valued member of the family. From [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high\_ct/2003/38.html](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2003/38.html) ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938/40 "2003-07-17T23:46:48Z")
With the new evidence, it’s hard to fault the doctor. He looked for a tube, couldn’t see it. I can’t say I’d feel he was medically negligent in those circumstances. It’s a one in a million sort of deal. QtM, MD [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doctor-sued-has-to-pay-for-childs-upbringing/188938.md?page=3)