ivh hydrocephelus malpractice

[darndj05]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? pa
My daughter was born 3-13-07
My due date was the first week of April.
Was schedule for a c section for the end of March. But after my visit on 3-10 the drs called my on Monday and said to go to have c section today at the latest Tuesday.
They were concerned for her small size. We knew she was small with some bone abnormalities from past ultrasounds.
They said ther would be a possability with lung and breathing problems I was only 36 6/7 weeks.
My daughter needed cpr and ventilation when born(which) was not available at that hospital. Needed to be flown to a facility with a NICU. Was diagnosed with IVH and hydrocephelus., among other gentic problems. Could the IVH and hydrocephelus be the cause of the Drs delivering to soon.

[mommyof4]

Do you mean could the early delivery have caused your daughter's health issues?

[lealea1005]

Although IVF could be caused by premature birth, it, as well as the hydrocephaly, could also be a result of the other genetic issues you refer to. Can you elaborate on what your Doctors told you about the baby's abnormalities found on ultrasound?

CPR and ventilation could have been necessary because the increased pressure on the brain depressed the baby's breathing and heart function.

[ecmst12]

What I don't understand is that this was a high risk delivery of a baby with known/expected problems - why would your doctor allow the delivery to be done at a hospital with no NICU facilities? That doesn't make any sense at all.

What was the reason that you were told you needed to have the C-section early?

[lya]

The signs/symptoms describe a chromosome abnormality, most likely Down's syndrome. Down syndrome babies are at risk of IVH, thus at risk for hydrocephalus.

At 36 weeks, the fetus could be delivered safely, vaginally or via c-section. I believe the c-section was done to prevent damage to the baby and performed because the physician(s) knew the baby did not need to be subjected to the trauma of a vaginal delivery.

Obviously, the delivering hospital had some form of stabilzing and treating the infant until transfer, including the ability to do infant CPR and provide ventilation.

Perhaps is not that the hospital had no NICU but that it did not have a higher level of NICU as would be required for an infant with a need for critical care.

I believe it will be most difficult to prove that any act of negligence is the only cause of the IVH and hydrocephalus (which is caused by IVH).

In the seven months since the baby was born, has any treating MD stated the IVH was due to negligence?

[darndj05]

I WAS CONSIDER HIGH RISK DUE TO AGE, 40 AT TIME OF DELIVERY.
HAD I HIGH TEST LEVEL FOR TRISOMY 13 (later to be unfounded). THROUGHOUT PREGNANCY ULTRASOUND SHOWED SHORT STATURE AND MALFORMED HANDS. NOTHING ELSE. DID NOT HAVE AMNIO. REASON FOR EARLY DELIVERY WAS THE SAID THEY WERE CONCERNED FOR HER SIZE (LOW WEIGHT, THEY EXPECTED HER TO BE ONLY 4LB 4 OZ...SHE WAS ACTUALLY 5.5). iWAS SCHEDULED FOR C-SECTION IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL (WAS DUE TO LAST PREGNANCY I HAD PLACENTA ABRUPTION)
OH AND NOT SURE IF THIS ALSO MAKE A DIFFERNCE BUT THE PEDIATRICIAN WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THE OB/GYN SEEN NO PROBLEMS FOR ME TO DELIVER AT THE LOCAL HOSPITAL, THAT THE BABY HAD NO PROBLEMS EXCEPT THE BONE ABNORMALITIES.
THE PED. WAS VERY UPSET WHEN HE HAD TO PERFORM CPR AND INTUBATE HER UNTIL ARRIVAL OF TRANSPORT TEAM FOR NICU.

[lealea1005]

Who made the decision not to have the amnio? You, or the OB/GYN?

[ecmst12]

Turn off Caps Lock, there is no need to shout and it makes your posts much harder to read.

I'm still not understanding. Small baby size is a reason to deliver LATER not earlier. There must have been something else going on that made the doctors want to get the baby out sooner.

I agree that the problems are more likely genetic then due to any malpractice, but the sequence of events just seem very strange to me.

[darndj05]

sorry about caps.
It was me not wanting amnio,due to risk(although low) of miscarraige or harm to baby
As far as them wanting to get baby out sooner. Thats what the only reason they gave me was...her size.
I too thought it would have made more sense to carry longer, but they wwere very adiment with delivering then.

[lealea1005]

At 36 6/7 weeks, the pregnancy was, essentially, considered term (not premature). Did they say anything about your cervix starting to dilate at your 3/10/08 visit? Perhaps that was the reason they wanted to deliver on the 13th so, as Lya stated, lowering the risk that the baby would have the additional trauma of being delivered vaginally.

Did you sign a waiver indicating you were declining the anmiocentesis against medical advice?

Can you please answer Lya's question regarding whether any of the treating Physicians identified the IVH/hydrocephaly as being due to negligence?