Woman says hospital stole baby

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Canadian4, Feb 17, 2013.

  1. Canadian4

    Canadian4 Taking it one day at a time

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...omb-doctors-tell-pregnancy-psychological.html

    I don't understand. I guess up til that day maybe it somehow was a psychological pregnancy even though she had ultrasounds, but she had an ultrasound right before being taken to the operating room. It showed the placenta had detached and they did an emergency csection and found no baby. Who is wrong here. The mom who thought she was pregnant or a hospital performing a csection on a woman who wasn't even pregnant. An ultrasound she had a week before told her the baby was a girl about seven pounds!!!
     
  2. Loading...


  3. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    63
    On the day Ms Santos believed her baby would be born, doctors at the Santa Casa de Maua hospital performed yet another ultrasound scan.
    Hospital records report that the mother-to-be arrived on December 26 'with vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain, requiring urgent attention.
    'The obstetrician diagnosed premature separation of the placenta and the patient was immediately transferred to the operating room.'


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ll-pregnancy-psychological.html#ixzz2LAtf0FTq
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    um yeah,this is all kinds of strange. An ultra sound performed on the day of the C-section by hospital would appear to be what let to the preliminary diagnosis of placental separation.

    How then is there no pregnancy? Placenta would indicate pregnancy? What exactly did the person reading the ultrasound see that led to tech preliminary diagnosis?
     
  4. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Santa Casa de Maua hospital claimed exams they performed before the delivery proved Ms Santos was not carrying a baby, but said they 'reserved the right to only present these exams at the opportune moment.'

    The couple's lawyer, Leila Salomao, confirmed they have asked a judge to seize the hospital's records relating to Ms Santos.

    The doctor responsible for Ms Santos' pre-natal treatment, Uesley Lima, has also reportedly promised to be a witness for the couple if they bring a criminal case against the hospital.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ll-pregnancy-psychological.html#ixzz2LAucjDoZ
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    um what delivery? If what the hospital is saying is true, why the c-section, why the preliminary diagnosis, and why is this still being called a delivery?

    They opened her up knowing there was no pregnancy but told her there was because the timing was "inopportune" to inform the patient or her husband???

    WTH?
     
  5. jjenny

    jjenny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,803
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What a bizarre story, to say the least. If the hospital is saying that woman was not actually pregnant, why did they do a c-section on her?
     
  6. Skagirl

    Skagirl New Member

    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought there was some kind of rule about not doing unnecessary surgery in the hippocratic oath? Can doing something against what the hippocratic oath says be found illegal? I don't think there's any way they can claim it was an "inoppourtune" time to mention it--a c-section would be pretty expensive, I would imagine.
     
  7. pukasonqo2

    pukasonqo2 Member

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    bizarre to say the least.
    re: c-sections,they are expensive in south america and they mean a lot of dollar$ for hospitals. off topic but none of my friends back home has had a vaginal delivery,their babies are all c-sections. only women w no insurance in public hospitals have vaginal deliveries unless the pregnancy is a high risk one.
     
  8. Ausgirl

    Ausgirl Enough Is Enough!

    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, to me the obvious first question (seeing as the alleged victim here seems a whole lot more kosher than the hospital, imo) --- are they trafficking in babies???

    I wonder how many other cases of 'phantom third trimester pregnancy w/ultrasound & placenta' there have been in that hospital..
     
  9. belimom

    belimom Our lives begin to end the day we become silent ab

    Messages:
    10,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Something is up with this hospital.

    From that link:

     
  10. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A rum tale indeed.

    So far in English-speaking media only the Daily Mail account and another a bit later from The Sun - two UK tabloids. Just checked and Sun's is identical to the Mail's. Both cite a Brazilian source for the story: "Tribunal Hoje" (it's actually Tribuna Hoje - it doesn't seem to have made Wiki's Brazilian newspapers page; appears to be more of a blog-run site - and seems to specialize in being "the news portal of Alagoas with the largest collection of information, videos, and entertainment columnists"; Mauá is a part of the São Paulo regional district, a very, very long way from the state of Alagoas) and same hospital (it's actually Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Mauá).

    Perhaps one of the two national papers in São Paulo or one of its regional papers (ten of 'em), have published the story, but I haven't happened on one yet. And as my knowledge of Portuguese is limited to one train ride in Canada years and years ago, trying my best to understand - with my fairly limited knowledge of Spanish - what a guy from Brazil in the seat in front of me was talking about, I certainly could have missed them. So I'm not saying that this story is "just not so" - I'm only saying that its provenance is currently a bit sketchy.
     
  11. Donjeta

    Donjeta Adji Desir, missing from Florida

    Messages:
    19,248
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How can she have had premature separation of the placenta if she wasn't pregnant? You don't develop a placenta in a purely psychological pregnancy imo.
     
  12. jjenny

    jjenny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,803
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yea, none of it makes any sense, does it?
    There is no need for a c-section in a psychological pregnancy.
    The hospital would be subjecting a patient to unnecessary surgery if they performed a c-section on a woman that was not pregnant.
     
  13. LaborDayRN

    LaborDayRN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A few things I'd like to add. I have been involved with women who have true phantom pregnancies. In a phantom pregnancy there would be no placenta. The placenta is an organ that provided nutrients, fluids and oxygen to that baby during pregnancy. If in fact the doctors had seen by ultrasound that the placenta had become fully or mostly detached from the uterine wall (placental abruption) this would be an emergency situation requiring immediate intervention (cesarean section). In cases of a full placental abruption, the baby may not survive. That being said, while performing an ultrasound on the placenta, they could not have missed seeing a baby! This leaves a few possibilities.

    If there was actually a placenta or placental fragment removed by cesarean section:

    1. The baby had been born outside the hospital and the patient was not able to deliver the placenta. (this can happen if the placenta does not detach normally after vaginal delivery. A retained placenta or placental fragment can be a dangerous thing causing a mother to hemorrhage risking possible loss
    of life.

    2. The baby was deceased and for whatever strange, heartless (fraudulent, unethical, illegal, I could go on) reason, they felt the need to hide this from the patient. I personally find this very unlikely.

    If there was no placenta present, I can see no reason to open the uterus unless the mother was hemorrhaging so badly that her life was at risk and they needed to find the source of the bleeding.

    In the US, she would have presented to the hospital and been evaluated or "triaged." One of the first things we do in triage is place the baby on a monitor. There is no mention of fetal heart tones in the article. The whole story is fishy if you ask me.
     
  14. princesspjs

    princesspjs .

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I found another article which talks about the ultrasound results a little bit different. This isn't MSM and could just be written from information from the dailymail articles...who knows. The whole thing is really strange.

    http://americanlivewire.com/layane-santos/
     
  15. marycarney

    marycarney Inactive

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I call shenanigans on the woman and her husband - the doctors "showed him the empty womb"?????

    NOT
     
  16. princesspjs

    princesspjs .

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "shenanigans" :giggle:
     
  17. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By law don't they have to get "informed" consent prior to surgery?
     
  18. mysteriew

    mysteriew A diamond in process

    Messages:
    23,795
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could it have been a "birth defect?" I know sometimes fetus's don't fully develop, stop growing or whatever so the child is born with sometype of abnormality. In this case could the baby have stopped growing/died, but somehow the body didn't get the message and continued to nourish the developing placenta. Still that should have been picked up on scans well prior to the birth.

    But on the whole I tend to believe the couple that the hospital has fabricated a story to cover up something happening to a child. Or they sold the baby.
     
  19. LaborDayRN

    LaborDayRN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's very interesting. Especially the fact that no fetus or placenta is mentioned.
     
  20. LaborDayRN

    LaborDayRN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    lol....I agree! Talk about disturbing the sterile field! I just don't see that happening.
     
  21. LaborDayRN

    LaborDayRN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes...in the U.S. they do. In the case of an emergency, it can be verbal. (but if at all possible, a signature is required).
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice