Posted on 09/17/2004 9:42:20 AM PDT by Osage Orange
Lawsuit enters Senate campaign
By Carmel Perez Snyder
Capitol Bureau
Angela Plummer admitted Thursday that Republican senate candidate Dr. Tom Coburn saved her life in 1990, but she stands by her allegations that he sterilized her without her consent.
Plummer, whose 13-year-old medical negligence lawsuit against Coburn has become an issue in the campaign, said she is glad her experience with him is getting a public airing.
"He told me when I went in for my checkup," she said. "He took me in a room by myself and said, 'By the way, I tied your tubes but don't tell anybody because I'll get in trouble.' I was just kind of in shock. It changed my life forever."
Coburn said reports about the old lawsuit are nothing more than a political attack launched by his Democratic opponent U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, D-Claremore.
"This is about the politics of personal destruction," Coburn said. "Angela told me at the time that she was happy it was done. This is coming from Carson's campaign, along with the whisper campaign that I'm an abortionist."
The lawsuit by Plummer, then 20, alleged that Coburn, an obstetrician, sterilized her without her consent. It was dismissed in trial court, reinstated on appeal and then dismissed again when she failed to pursue it.
At a news conference Thursday, Plummer further explained her feelings about the operation Coburn performed.
"Yes, he did save my life," she said. "I will give him credit for that, and I am very grateful for that, but cutting and burning my healthy fallopian tube did not save my life.
"I am not up here to try and smear him. I am up here because I wanted to have more children, and he took that away from me."
Coburn has said he received oral consent for the sterilization just before the procedure.
His campaign released a statement Thursday from Sherri Yaussey, a registered nurse who was present when Plummer, then Angela Rosson, received medical care in October 1990.
"It was determined that she had a ruptured pregnancy and needed surgery to stop the hemorrhaging," Yaussey said. "I specifically remember the patient wanted her tubes tied. She begged Dr. Coburn to tie her tubes.
"In our urgency to get her to surgery, a written consent for the tubal ligation was not signed but that did not change the fact that the patient wanted to have her tubes tied. After surgery, I had occasion to visit the patient in her room. She was sitting up in bed and pale. Her statement to me was one of relief that she was glad that she wouldn't be able to have any more children."
Yaussey also gave a deposition at the time of the original court case.
Plummer's case was initially dismissed for a violation of the statute of limitations. She said that after the appeals court reinstated the case, she had difficulty finding a new attorney and later was notified by mail that the case had been dismissed because she wasn't present on her court date.
Plummer said she was not offered a settlement in the case but wants to make sure what happened to her doesn't happen to other women.
"I want it stopped. He needs to realize he's not God.
"He changed my life forever. He violated me. That's the same as being raped. He took part of my womanhood."
Coburn said that his actions were appropriate.
"If the same thing happened today under the same circumstances, I'd do it exactly the same way," he said.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Just another nut job sheeple, idiot.
This is even more evidence of RAT corruption in this State. An RN testified under oath that the patient agreed to have her tubes tied and one reason why the case was thrown out.
This is nothing but an old-fashioned smear job by the RATs here in OK where Parmalee talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is against the article but wants Dr. Tom to answer the allegations! Who does that sound like?
Guess that Dr. Tom should have just let the lady die which he never would have done? He saved her life and this is payback he gets from an obvious RAT. This was trotted out in 1994 as well. When the RATs don't have current news they dig up the old that was debunked in a court case.
Carson lies about his record and the media ignores. The RATs drag up a case from the early 90's and it makes the news.
Disgusting!
The smear of the Good Doctor continues. Carson must be really desperate. This lawsuit is immaterial in a legal sense. I hope OK voters will disregard the lawsuit since it is no longer valid.
I guess the lawsuit makes Dr Coburn a RINO Socialist and Carson, a conservative Democrat wirht voting for. At least according to some unappeaseable types here.
Young doctors getting out of med school are taught today to never do a "favor" or an elective procedure for any patient without a signed consent.
Mr. Carson is a scummy character and so is this woman.
Disgusting...if the tort reform laws don't screen these frivoulous lawsuits from even going to court, no more intelligent people are going to want to go into medicine...
As you've pretty much nailed it.
FRegards,
The lady was begging for Dr. Tom to tie her tubes according to the RN in her deposition and he was trying to save her life -- not much time to get signed consent.
I assure you that is already happening............Not only that, but many fine DO's & MD's are leaving the profession.
Verbal consent is given ALL the time....In fact "medical necessity" consent is also given ALL the time.
Immoral? Really? Would you care to expound on that statement?
BS. If the tube Dr. Coburn tied is the only reason she hasn't had more children, this is a crock. She could have, and at age 34 still can have, children via IVF. And if she can't have children via IVF, that's because something else is wrong with her reproductive system, separate from the tied tube, and thus not caused by Dr. Coburn.
For life saving measures.
If the ligation were necessary to save her life that would be one thing. This article portrays it as an extra, elective surgery.
Would you care to expound on that statement?
Sure. Sterilizing people is immoral. Artificial interference in a person's generative faculty for non-life-threatening reasons is contrary to right reason. If you don't want to have any more kids then you can either take advantage of your natural periods of infertility or you can refrain from intercourse.
It's pretty clear that this woman now deeply regrets her decision to neuter herself.
All he had to say to avoid a lawsuit was: "Right now, my primary concern is keeping you alive. If you want a ligation later, we can schedule an appointment."
Whatever the circumstances, Dr. Coburn clearly acted in good faith and this woman's contentions are completely scurrilous and disgusting.
Just pointing out that the new generation of doctors, as opposed to old-school guys like Dr. Coburn, are very aware from the beginning of how careful they need to be in order to avoid opportunistic ambulance chasers.
Sorry but...you are wrong. I happen to work in the health care field...and verbal consent is given quite often.
If the ligation were necessary to save her life that would be one thing. This article portrays it as an extra, elective surgery.
I believe that the article say's that the RN witnessed ( Standard Procedure ) the verbal exchange of the pt. with Dr. Coburn. I would imagine that in Dr. Coburn's best medical judgement...it was prudent to "tie her tubes".
Sure. Sterilizing people is immoral. Artificial interference in a person's generative faculty for non-life-threatening reasons is contrary to right reason. If you don't want to have any more kids then you can either take advantage of your natural periods of infertility or you can refrain from intercourse.
It's pretty clear that this woman now deeply regrets her decision to neuter herself.
Neuter??? Interesting choice of words...I can see this is some sort of "pet" issue for you....
No problem...
Take Care,
How so?
To summarize the principles of moderate realism (Aristotelian/Thomist moral philosophy) as concisely as possible:
all human faculties are naturally ordered to an end.
The end of the generative faculty is procreation.
The destruction of a faculty's ability to achieve its naturally ordered end, when that destruction is not ordered to a higher end, is violative of that faculty and constitutes a mutilation of the person.
OK. How is limiting family size not a higher end?
Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.
Assuming that these conditions obtain, family size can be limited by taking advantage of the natural periods of infertility which are an integral part of the natural generative faculty or through voluntary abstention - both of which preserve the physical integrity of the person and their faculties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.