# Nurse manager says you can't refuse iv



## paintedbison (Dec 10, 2007)

Due to financial reasons we may deliver at a very medical hospital here because it is the only thing our insurance covers. I used to work there several years ago (as a nurse on an ob floor).

I was talking to a friend of mine who works in the nursery and asking her about transitioning the baby at bedside instead of in the nursery and the possibility about her coming in to do the baby. Anyways, she wound up talking to the l&d nurse manager about me. The manager said that they would "not allow me" to refuse an iv. I could refuse the iv fluids, but not the access. She said "it would be required".

Okay, first of all, how the heck can they not allow me to refuse an IV? I'm just wondering exactly what will play out when they say "we need to start an iv" and then I say no.

I'm also wondering if I should just get a heplock... if refusing it is just going to turn into a bigger fight than it's worth. I'm pretty opposed to that idea, though. Doesn't really seem fair that I get something I don't want because others can't understand what they are legally allowed to do...


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

For my first birth an IV was "required" as well. We had talked to my OB about it in advance and it was the one thing from our birth plan that he put his foot down about. Low and behold he was on vacation during the birth.

When I got there the nurses wanted to put in an IV. I simply said, "I'd rather not" And they shrugged and said "Okay" I could tell they didn't like pushing such things on moms. I had awesome nurses.







They later informed me that the doctor on called "Okayed it for now" When the on-call doc arrived she wanted me to put one in. I politely declined again and they had me sign a AMA. I finally ended up getting a hep-lock 2 pushes before she was born that was absolutely useless.









Second baby was born at home. I'd had it with fighting for things I didn't want.

Anyway, I suppose the point of that is that nothing is really "required" and you can refuse to consent to anything.


----------



## paintedbison (Dec 10, 2007)

The funny thing is the doctor I'm going to see will supposedly okay no iv access. The nurse manager said that order would not matter because they will place an iv access. I'm totally baffled by her comments.


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

Has she not heard of "consent"?


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paintedbison* 
The funny thing is the doctor I'm going to see will supposedly okay no iv access. The nurse manager said that order would not matter because they will place an iv access. I'm totally baffled by her comments.

They can't place it if you don't cooperate with them. IV access just makes it easier for them to give you things you don't want. I couldn't believe how fast they got the hep-lock in my arm when they thought they needed it. It was placed _*while*_ I was pushing. If they can do it that fast, then they can wait until they actually need it. They took it out about 30 minutes after dd1 was born and it wasn't used for anything. Can you tell I'm still bitter about it?


----------



## paintedbison (Dec 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dogmom327* 
Has she not heard of "consent"?

yeah... that's what I'm wondering. And if she hasn't heard of it, what exactly are they going to do to me?


----------



## lifeguard (May 12, 2008)

I would focus my discussions on this (& other issues with the doctor). Many hospitals have "policies" but the doctor often has the right to overrule these. Where I delivered they have delivery rooms that are essentially operating rooms where they move you to deliver. My doctor felt it was unnecessary & so his patients were "permitted" to deliver in the regular rooms where we laboured. There were a couple other policies he overruled with me including an iv even though I had GD.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

They should allow a heplock. However, if they keep trying to hook you up to fluids with it, I'd just keep removing the tube and shutting off the pump (sometimes it rawks to have a mom that's an RN!) They can't conceivably "make" you have an IV. Unless they're gonna strap you down to the bed or something, which obviously they cannot do.


----------



## peainthepod (Jul 16, 2008)

AFAIK, they can't force you to take an IV unless you're incapacitated or otherwise unable to give consent.

Ask that nurse manager if she's ever heard of the term "medical battery". I imagine all talk of a forced IV will end pretty fast.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

This hospital has a nursery for health babies? I didn't think hospitals had those any more.


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
This hospital has a nursery for health babies? I didn't think hospitals had those any more.

When I first got pregnant with DS we were in Salt Lake City and DH really wanted a hospital birth. Part of the tour was the nursery where all babies were required to spend hours 2-3 or 4 after birth for "observation". There were about 3 newborn babies in there when we toured. Laying there with just their diapers, no on attending to them (a nurse was in the room but not right with each baby), no parents in sight. The person doing the tour assured us that dad could go with the baby but I'm guessing it's not encouraged. She also pointed out how great it is for the mom to be without her baby for a few hours right after birth







:

Needless to say that ended any discussion of a hospital birth--I put my foot down. Home birth it was!


----------



## LoganBsMom (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paintedbison* 
The funny thing is the doctor I'm going to see will supposedly okay no iv access. The nurse manager said that order would not matter because they will place an iv access. I'm totally baffled by her comments.

Pretty sure that is illegal. You can't do an invasive procedure (no matter how minor) with out a doctors order. You have plenty of rights, I didn't read everyones responses, but I would say, just say no. I am a nurse (not l&d) and if a patient refuses something I explain why we think they need it, they still say no that is their right. And as long as the nurse charts that you refused, there is no liability to the hospital. And really, are they going to tie you down and put it in, I don't think so. I would be careful about "just going along with it" to avoid confrontation, that tends to start a cycle. And make sure dh/partner knows what you want so that when you are incoherant they can advocate for you. Good luck.


----------



## lookingforaname (Jun 17, 2007)

Aw, I'm sorry for another setback, Stacey.








Grr nurse mangager. Doesn't look hopeful for a tub, eh?


----------



## ollineeba (Apr 12, 2005)

So she wants you to get the saline lock, but you don't want it? That is not a battle that I would fight right now, I'd just tell them at the time that you've decided you will not be getting one. If it's that important to you, don't budge.

When I had dd I didn't want an IV, either, but compromised and got a saline lock. If I had felt really strongly about it, I wouldn't have given in, but it didn't get in the way or bother me much.
Do what you feel most comfortable with. Good luck!


----------



## brendaziz (Aug 6, 2008)

Personally I don't see the biggie about a heplock. But that's just for me. It might be a tad annoying but for me the pros outweigh the cons. Having access to my veins w/o having to search for one in case of emergency can save minutes that u may not have time for. Definitely almost never the case and i know it's very "what if" but with this one I tend to fall on the side of caution. When I was in labor it took the nurses a VERY long time to find my vein when i needed it and I would've preferred to have that done right away as opposed to when I was having crazy contractions. Even most midwives I know feel much more comfortable with that in case of emergency. But I def understand not wanting to labor and birth with a "what if" mentality. If you don't want it I don't know that they can "force" you- but if they feel that strongly about it they'll prob feel strongly about other things you may not want also. I would say pick your battles and maybe save your fighting for something that may be actually really detrimental or hugely against what you believe- but definitely if you feel really strongly about this then fight this battle. Just make sure you weigh pros and cons of everything first.
Good luck with everything!


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I had a saline lock with my last birth because of a previous pph. It was hell, and I won't do it again unless I had a real reason.


----------



## kltroy (Sep 30, 2006)

Personally, I don't think I'd fight the saline-lock battle. I had one for my VBAC birth 5 months ago and while it was an annoyance, they never ever accessed it. And my nurse promptly removed it as soon as the baby was out. If you mostly labor at home they won't have too much time to mess with that sort of nonsense anyway


----------



## paintedbison (Dec 10, 2007)

Okay... I posted about this on another forum I belong to for ob nurses (that is not a natural birth place... just a nursing place). I am now hearing insurance could refuse to pay for the ENTIRE hospital stay if I refuse an IV because it is part of the "consent to treat".

Anyone ever heard about that? If insurance isn't going to pay for this anyways because I don't want an iv then it's not worth doing the hospital birth. And is insurance going to refuse to pay because I refuse IV fluids? pitocin?

I am beyond frustrated...


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

Nurses are not medical billing specialists.

Why would your health insurance co care if you declined an IV? They aren't in the business of enforcing hospital policy. They are almost definitely paying the hospital a pre-negotiated rate for every delivery regardless of what the mom accepts or declines. The form the hospital submits to the ins. co. for payment does not have a ticky box on it that says "pt. was less-than-100% compliant, pay us more."

The consent to treat form is how the hospital handles malpractice liability. You should feel free to modify it or refuse to sign it. It has nothing to do with what your insurance company pays.


----------



## ollineeba (Apr 12, 2005)

I think that's a load. I've heard that before in regards to coercing women to cave to other hospital procedures over on the VBAC board and the ICAN list, but I'm pretty sure it was all bull.


----------



## stik (Dec 3, 2003)

If you're really worried, contact your ins. provider and ask them how they bill hospitals for providing maternity care, and under what circumstances they refuse to pay. Insurance companies pay for emergency treatment on drunk and disorderly patients. They pay for treatment for people whose religious beliefs forbid them from accepting blood transfusions. They pay for treatment for small children who scream, kick, and bite. My insurance paid for my delivery even though I declined practically everything and was screaming at the nurses not to touch me when dd was born.

Believe me, the insurance company does not look at a detailed account of every birth and decide which women qualify for coverage after the fact. That would cost them an unbelievable amount of money, and they don't want to incur either the administrative cost or the related liability.

I'm repeating myself, but I'm really mad that people are trying to coerce you into compliance with unnecessary procedures. If your doctor's orders say no IV, there should be no question. If the doctor doesn't put that in your orders and you say you don't want an IV, there should also be no question. Some people don't mind a hep lock - more power to them, but they're not having your baby.


----------



## paintedbison (Dec 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stik* 
If you're really worried, contact your ins. provider and ask them how they bill hospitals for providing maternity care, and under what circumstances they refuse to pay. Insurance companies pay for emergency treatment on drunk and disorderly patients. They pay for treatment for people whose religious beliefs forbid them from accepting blood transfusions. They pay for treatment for small children who scream, kick, and bite. My insurance paid for my delivery even though I declined practically everything and was screaming at the nurses not to touch me when dd was born.

Believe me, the insurance company does not look at a detailed account of every birth and decide which women qualify for coverage after the fact. That would cost them an unbelievable amount of money, and they don't want to incur either the administrative cost or the related liability.

I'm repeating myself, but I'm really mad that people are trying to coerce you into compliance with unnecessary procedures. If your doctor's orders say no IV, there should be no question. If the doctor doesn't put that in your orders and you say you don't want an IV, there should also be no question. Some people don't mind a hep lock - more power to them, but they're not having your baby.

Thanks for the advice. I've been a bit afraid to call because I don't want to really draw attention to myself. I called a bunch trying to find out about getting coverage to see a midwife and they won't talk with you unless you give them your #. I don't want to start asking "could you refuse to pay if I do xyz". I'm just afraid it might make them notice and then refuse. I'm probably being paranoid, though. I just figure it's sometimes easier to ask forgiveness instead of permission, kwim?


----------



## L&K'smommie (Aug 23, 2007)

What co do you have??? I delivered my ds without an IV...granted they had to stick me afterwards, but if a few things hadn't happened I would've been IV free and nobody ever told me insurance wouldn't cover it. That is a load of BS. That said can you look at your insurance plan online and see what's in your coverage. Most insurance co get nothing except a bill with codes on it...and they pay. They typically only ask for medical records in VERY rare cases...like when codes don't match up quite right.

Oh and my other piece of advice...show up late...like almost ready to push...that's what I did(not technically on purpose, but still late) and there was no time to get an IV the nurse was too busy getting ready in case my MW didn't make it and she had to deliver the baby.


----------



## yarngoddess (Dec 27, 2006)

I first talk to your doctor. Tell him/her that the nurse manager is saying this. If he/she does not have a problem with no hep lock or IV then have it in your chart -NO IV. If the nurse manager were to challenge this direct her to your chart and doctor. I would also call your insurance co after talking with your doc and say "Hey, my DOCTOR says this, however the nurses at this hospital are talking about FORCED MEDICAL ABUSE- would that be a reson to deny payment?" What are they going to say? REALLY! If you have your doctor in your corner then I wouldn't worry. I would also, as pp said, ask what WOULD cause them to Deny payment of a delivery.

You could also contact the hospital admin and discuss this with them. In my local hospital (where I worked as a CNA on the medical surgical unit) we had standard policies that were in place to protect the hospital, and if a patient was uncomfortable or uncooperative(sp) the administration would come and talk to them, their nurse and doctor and we changed policies MANY times to accomidate people. You could also contact the ombudsman(lawyer for patients in the hospital) or a private attorney so that you completely understand your rights (usually free the first appointment).

I hope you get the birth you are hoping for. I also hope you don't just "give up" because you don't want to deal with this. So many of us just go with the flow instead of making waves, and if we ALL don't start demanding Respect in our births how are things going to change? HUGS and Strenght to you!!!


----------



## katmann (Oct 15, 2008)

You might call your insurance company to find out what there policy is on this. Like the previous posters said, it sounds crazy that they would deny you coverage just because you refused an IV.

Also, you might want to have an advocate besides your partner, maybe a girlfriend who can stick up for you really well, at the hospital with you. That way your partner can focus on you, and your friend can make sure the nurses aren't slipping an IV in when you're not looking or something.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katmann* 
Also, you might want to have an advocate besides your partner, maybe a girlfriend who can stick up for you really well, at the hospital with you.

This!

Also, I consented to a hep-lock. I figured it would be no biggie.

Well, I arrived having already been through 1st stage for 30 min!! (20 min drive to hospital). they placed it anyway as I was on my hands & knees pushing after my MW checked & confirmed that I was 10cm. My doula helped hold my hand still.

Well, my wrists hurt sometimes while on hands & knees, so I'll put my fist instead of palm down (the wrist is in a more neutral, natural position that way.) The darn thing was in the way! It extended beyond my knuckles!

The nurse also refused to remove it for like an hour PP.

Of all the many things I wanted in my birth plan, no IV was a very low priority, so I can see where people would advise to not fight this battle. But if your doc is cool with it, don't cave in cuz of the stupid nurse manager! she has no authority!! Clearly, this woman is hostile to natural birth (to any pts who fight the "standards.") so if you get someone like that, request another nurse! Hopefully you'll find one who's at least easy-going & laid back with what you want, if not outright friendly to NCB.

Good luck!


----------



## meganmarie (Jan 29, 2005)

You said your OB had okayed the no-IV. His sign-off, in addition to your right to refuse an invasive medical procedure, should over-rule any hospital protocol. The nurse manager is quoting nothing but her own wishful thinking. I also don't see why insurance would be an issue at all.

Have you asked your OB to sign your birth plan, or some similar document with your major issues on it (e.g. "no routine IV, unless with my express consent should it become medically necessary")? You can ask that they place the signed plan in your medical records...which will be at the hospital so the nurses can see it. This helped me. I refused the IV and heplock (it was standard procedure but OB had okayed skipping it) RNs didn't give me much of a hard time, especially when they realized I was basically ready to push anyway. I second a recommendation above to show up at hospital really, really, really too late for them to do anything to you...

As to whether or not this is worth a fight - only you can decide that. You've heard here from people who weren't bothered by it - and others who really hated it. I am in the latter category personally. Needles give me the worst possible creeps and there is no way I could have stayed in my labor zone doing full body relaxation with something sticking into my hand. No one can say how this will feel for you - except you.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Uh, that's a pretty aggressive nurse.

I'd tell her where to stick it (and I'm an RN BTW!)

I had a saline lock with both mine - but I didn't mind.

For things I had an issue with, I just said 'No' - end of discussion.

I'm expert at ignoring people.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paintedbison* 
I am now hearing insurance could refuse to pay for the ENTIRE hospital stay if I refuse an IV because it is part of the "consent to treat".

About that . . . . You are not required by law to sign the "consent to treat" form. In fact, you can customize it and specify that you do not consent to routine I.V. You can also add that all interventions may be done only with your/your DH's fully informed consent.

A common recommendation is to get all of the sign-in paperwork well before you go into labor. (This is sensible anyway. What actively laboring woman is going to focus and read all of that legalize garble)?

If your hospital is receiving federal funding and files claims through Medicaid and Medicare, it must adhere to conditions of participation (CoP), which requires participating facilities to honor a patient's right to informed consent and to refuse treatment (outlined in EMTALA and the Patient Self-Determination Act.)

I'm not a lawyer. I just read all of this in Marsden Wagner's book.







(He details all of this on p. 178-180. The book preview lets you see the last two pages if you scroll down).

In your shoes, I'd totally spring for a doula to look out for you while you focus on getting your baby out.


----------



## *MamaJen* (Apr 24, 2007)

Just to throw this idea out there, but many homebirth midwives will work with you financially.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paintedbison* 
Okay... I posted about this on another forum I belong to for ob nurses (that is not a natural birth place... just a nursing place). I am now hearing insurance could refuse to pay for the ENTIRE hospital stay if I refuse an IV because it is part of the "consent to treat".

Anyone ever heard about that? If insurance isn't going to pay for this anyways because I don't want an iv then it's not worth doing the hospital birth. And is insurance going to refuse to pay because I refuse IV fluids? pitocin?

I am beyond frustrated...

Total and complete BS.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MamaJen** 
Just to throw this idea out there, but many homebirth midwives will work with you financially.









:

-Angela


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paintedbison* 
Okay... I posted about this on another forum I belong to for ob nurses (that is not a natural birth place... just a nursing place). I am now hearing insurance could refuse to pay for the ENTIRE hospital stay if I refuse an IV because it is part of the "consent to treat".

Anyone ever heard about that? If insurance isn't going to pay for this anyways because I don't want an iv then it's not worth doing the hospital birth. And is insurance going to refuse to pay because I refuse IV fluids? pitocin?

I am beyond frustrated...

Totally not true. Insurance co can actually go through the bill and determine what they are going to pay for and what they aren't. My ds was in the hospital with pneumonia and had to have 2 bags. The insurance co refused to pay for the 2nd bag. We fought it but didn't win in the end. I was so mad. He obviously needed it but they refused to pay for it. Consider it like a line item veto. Its not all or nothing. I refused stuff at my hospital birth and it was all covered.

I had an IV with my hospital birth and it was awful. At first it worked out but after awhile I noticed it wasn't working right, there was blood going into my IV. They removed it but it left a scar.


----------



## annekh23 (Nov 1, 2008)

I'm struggling with getting my head around this one. I'm a Brit, but I live in the US, we are lucky with our insurance so I have a hard time working out what is legal and what is not.

Two things that stick out is first of all a nurse cannot possibly be an expert in medical billing. The 2nd is that surely insurance is way more likely to refuse to pay for something that you did have done rather than refuse to pay for something because you didn't have something done. It's hard to even think what might be cost consequences of not having it done, the reason given to put it in is to not have to do it should an emergency arise, where you want people to not have to pay attention to that and if it's a situation that involves bleeding the veins can become difficult to access. But all that happens is that someone does have to take the time to do that and occassionally it will take a few goes, I've honestly never heard of someone not eventually being able to get it in, even if they have to call multiple people.

You are probably also aware that few emergencies happen so quickly there isn't warning that establishing IV access might have become a good idea.

I think this is one I would fight because it happens early on, it's a way of establishing boundaries with the nurse you are working with, if your can't trust them to respect your no on this one then what else can you not trust them on? Also I feel that it's presence makes it too easy to "just" pop some fluids up etc.

Cheers
Anne


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I have BTDT. I did not sign the consent form, I created my own. I did not agree to all their "routine" "required" stuff and refused most everything that they said I could not refuse. I made them good and mad, but had exactly what I needed and no more.

My insurance paid for everything.

Their "we will not allow 'this' or 'that'", or "you can not refuse 'this' or 'that'", and their scare tactics about insurance refusals are just that, scare tactics used to force compliance.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annekh23* 
You are probably also aware that few emergencies happen so quickly there isn't warning that establishing IV access might have become a good idea.

True. Good point. And you might want to mention this to the nurse when you refuse.

Quote:

I think this is one I would fight because it happens early on, it's a way of establishing boundaries with the nurse you are working with, if your can't trust them to respect your no on this one then what else can you not trust them on?
Another great point

Quote:

Also I feel that it's presence makes it too easy to "just" pop some fluids up etc.
My doula said the same thing. Of course, DH, doula & I would have been watching like a hawk if they try to insert a tube into my hep-lock. ANd, of course, if I did need fluids or something (as a result of profuse vomiting, for example), I would also have watched to be sure they didn't add a bag of something else without informing me.

I know that confrontation & refusal to consent to standard treatments could possibly lead to a hostile environment, and that's the last thing a laboring woman needs.

However, I suspect if you tell them you understand where they are coming from - you KNOW why they want to do XYZ, they might be less frustrated & angry at your refusal.

LOL, my Mom's a nurse & wasn't crazy about the idea of no IV! she said, "Oh, but in the event of hemmorage, the vascular system can collapse, making it difficult to establish IV access."

Well, maybe say exactly that to the nurse! "I understand that in the event of hemmorage, the vascular system can collapse, making it difficult to establish IV access. If, at some point, I begin to bleed profusely and Dr. ABC says he thinks the IV is neccesary, at that point, I would certainly reconsider. However, for now, I'm willing to accept the risk of not establishing the IV port."

That way you let them know, "Look, I know you are trying to look out for me, I am giving *informed dissent* here! I'm taking this risk on myself."

Maybe that will help. I don't know. Just a thought. At very least, it might end the conversation. If you say, "I know the risk of declining, and I'm doing it anyway." I can't imagine they'll keep hassling you.


----------



## ShadowMoon (Oct 18, 2006)

I was told during the hospital tour that you HAD to have the IV no matter what. I knew I wouldn't allow it but didn't say anything. When I went into the delivery room, my doula and doctor told the nurse I didn't want the IV and she was perfectly ok with that. You may want to investigate this further. I'm not sure if they can legally force you to have it.


----------



## jmcqabigler (May 7, 2006)

I have done medical insurance billing and while all insurances are different. Bills are coded by what you had done there is no space to put a code about what was not done so while they can deny a claim because they do not pay for that specific thing thay cannot deny a claim for something that was not used because there is no code on the form to deny. Hope that makes sense this is just basic insurance billing there could be a lophole with hospital based insurance but I doubt it. good luck most of the time when you deny something the nurses are not going to fight with you about it.


----------



## phreedom (Apr 19, 2007)

I don't understand this "you HAVE to have an (medical thingy here), you can't refuse" mentality. I've haven't been a nurse that long, but I don't understand this. Many nurses or doctors will tell patients that stuff HAS to be done a certain way, because it IS protocol and it makes our job easier if people just comply. Some medical people find it very inconvenient to have to call doctors and fill out extra paper work (well it IS inconvenient...but I didn't go into nursing for the convenience of it...and besides that's not really the patients concern)

If someone questions something I'm about to do, I'll tell them why we do it and try to answer any questions they have. I certainly don't try to get them to refuse stuff, but it they refuse it, they refuse it. I'm not going to sit there and argue that they MUST do anything. I'll inform the doctor and let them deal with it. I'll just document very thoroughly to cover myself.

I find this (refusing everything) more aggravating with the sicker population. I used to work on a heart floor. Its a little puzzling when a diabetic comes in and refuses any and all treatment (I'm talking about everything) no matter how much you inform them. I have to wonder why they even come to the hospital. In some instances they are just discharged home and "fired" by the doctor. BUT a healthy young woman going to the hospital to have a baby is different than a 60 year old diabetic with an infected foot wound and I think different circumstances should be treated individually.


----------



## Azreial (Jul 14, 2004)

I had a pp hemmorage and I ahve "difficult veins" and I did not have a hep-lock or iv in place and the cnm got the iv in and going in no time

As far as insurnace goes, I was told the leave AMA and ins won't pay thing as well. Well I left AMA in my last pg when I had issues and they wanted me on hospital bedrest from 28-34 weeks and we took one of the twins home AMA and ins paid no problem both times. Well not quite no problem but that was only because of the twin, both were in the nicu and the ins kept insisting the hospital was double billing







but the AMA thing, a non-issue


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

i had an IV in during my c section and then right afterwards so they could give me meds. i took it out that night b/c the nurse wouldn't (i don't really recommend this btw it is not particularly pleasant and i wouldn't have done it if i hadn't been so doped up) but i flat refused to let them put it in again. i also refused no to eat. if it hadn't been a section i wouldn't have let them put it in to begin with.


----------



## DaisyMay (Aug 17, 2008)

Slightly different issue, but I've heard that docs can get a court order very quickly to force IV antibiotics on you if you are positive for group Bstrep or if you don't have a current negative screen. I'm amazed that any treatment can be administered without explicit consent from the patient, even if it is considered in patient's best interest, but I guess in this case they argue that it's the baby's interests that are being protected over and above the wishes of the mom.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

In most places a court order for anything medical takes a bit of time and is fairly unusual. It *can* be done, but my no means is it common-place.

-Angela


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
In most places a court order for anything medical takes a bit of time and is fairly unusual.









:

Also, I think I remember reading that ACOG officially recommends against trying to use the law to force a pregnant mom to do something against her will (even if it's in her & the baby's best interests.)

Also, legally, there are precedents that a parent can't be legally forced to undergo a medical procedure in order to benefit their child, such as donating a kidney to their child to save the child's life. So the law is on the Mom's side here to refuse.

Besides, a GBS+ Mom not getting ABTs has a ONE-HALf of ONE-PERCENT CHANCE of having an infected baby! .5%! One in 200! That's hardly a massive risk!


----------

