Not enough space in subject line field, so...a 24-weeker was baptized in the NICU without parental knowledge or consent (at Grandma's request apparently) and in doing so, infection control protocol was breached. Parents are suing.
I found this on my FB, and found the majority of the comments are the equivalent of "It's NBD, what's so terrible about baptism and OMG FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT!!!!"
A Beaver County couple claim in a lawsuit filed Thursday that a Russian Orthodox archpriest baptized their premature son without their knowledge or consent while he was in an incubator at Magee-Womens Hospital in Oakland.
Amanda and David Tatarko of Aliquippa filed the 19-page lawsuit on behalf of their son, Logan, in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
The lawsuit names the Very Rev. Mitred Archpriest George Mitchell, Christ Our Savior Orthodox Church in Indiana, Pa., and the hospital, among others, as defendants.
The lawsuit accuses Mitchell of performing an emergency baptism on Logan, who was born 16 weeks premature in August 2010. The lawsuit states that Mitchell breached infection-free procedures for the incubator when he put holy water on Logan. The lawsuit does not claim any physical harm. Mitchell said he was not aware of the lawsuit and declined comment.
A UPMC spokesman did not return a call for comment.
A lawyer for the Tatarkos, Jeffrey Myers, said it's unclear why Mitchell did the baptism and how he got access to the baby. Myers said the couple is not members of the church, but David Tatarko's mother is a parishioner.
Post by basilosaurus on Jun 22, 2012 17:23:12 GMT -5
Don't you think the priest should have contact with the parents? He's not at fault for breaching hospital protocol, but he is at fault for doing something without the parents' consent.
WTF??! I'd be beating the shit out of Grandma as well.
No kidding. I can't figure out why she isn't on the list to be sued. I can see how the priest may not have known that it would be a problem, but the hospital seriously screwed up here.
I am not understanding how this happened. I know you name everyone you can in a lawsuit, but is the priest really at fault here? He was called (by the grandmother apparently), he responded, and the hospital let him in. He probably did not know any of this was going on.
The priest should have obtained parental consent, so yes, he's at fault. It wasn't Grandma's place to arrange a baptism and he should have respected that.
I refuse to believe he didn't know, because if the parents wanted the baptism they would have BEEN THERE.
Don't you think the priest should have contact with the parents? He's not at fault for breaching hospital protocol, but he is at fault for doing something without the parents' consent.
If gma was his parishioner, he might not have questioned it/thought they were ok with it. I don't think it's his fault at all.
It's 100% the fault of the nosy old biddy of a gma who decided to take matters into her own hands.
I think talking about this as a "baptism issue" does a disservice to the parents and politicizes a medical issue. The problem is that someone let an unsterile person, with unsterile equipment in to see their *very* premature infant without their permission. Hell yes, that is a problem.
I see it as a twofold issue. Medical concerns aside, I see a gross disregard for the parents' religious preferences which IMO is a big deal.
ETA: the article states the parents are not members of this church. Suppose they belong to another Christian church - who's to say they weren't planning a baptism by their own clergy?
Wow. I think the biggest issue is the health concerns, given that he could have ended up sick (or dead?) from the situation. The hospital should have prevented tha fom happening. It's on thing if THEY requested it and the hospital agreed. Next at fault is grandma, who I'd probably never speak to again.
I'd be so angry I could not breathe. So Grandma gets the priest from her church to come baptize a terribly weak child in the hospital, without telling the parents, and the hospital lets it happen? I don't know who I'd hurt first, but the hospital would be on the list
This is exactly the kind of asshattery my grandma pulls in the name of Jesus. It makes me really sad that she has allowed her strong desire to share her faith to put her at odds with her entire family.
Don't you think the priest should have contact with the parents? He's not at fault for breaching hospital protocol, but he is at fault for doing something without the parents' consent.
If gma was his parishioner, he might not have questioned it/thought they were ok with it. I don't think it's his fault at all.
It's 100% the fault of the nosy old biddy of a gma who decided to take matters into her own hands.
I agree with this 100%! When my twins were born prematurely at 32 weeks, my MIL had her pastor come in and try to do the same thing. I happen to have been in the NICU at the time with DH's aunt. I allowed a prayer over their incubators but NOT a baptism. We had planned to have one done through another church.
It was our NICU's policy to not allow visitors in without the parents in attendance as well. I wonder what the NICU policy is at this hospital?
Next at fault is grandma, who I'd probably never speak to again.
That's pretty much a given. It would take an act of God (heh) to get me to speak to her again.
I just posted in the other thread how MIL wants to baptize DS (catholic) evn though I'm atheist and DH is agnostic. It took some explaining as to why that was NOT ok. I know he won't though because she knows I'd promptly stop visits.
If infection protocol (or whatever the term is) for this particular child was breached, how in holy HE double hockey sticks did the nurses allow for this to happen? I know, religion often gets a pass, but is it really okay for the health of a very fragile child to be compromised? This can't be their policy.
This is awful but w/ no damages there is no lawsuit.
Honest question - why not?
As a medical professional I know it's illegal to perform a medical procedure on an adult w/o consent, or on a minor w/o parental consent. Even if no damages resulted, it's still illegal.
Similarly, given that infringement on freedom of religious choice is unconstitutional, how can this unauthorized baptism be legal? I'm not a lawyer so I could be way off base, but I honestly don't get it.
I'm also wondering how the priest accessing the baby is not a HIPAA violation, since we know the parents didn't authorize this access. (again, Grandma's approval is not good enough as she is not the child's legal guardian)
Post by invinoveritas on Jun 22, 2012 19:12:54 GMT -5
I'm just a lurker... BUT when my twins were born at 27 weeks NO-ONE saw them but me and H. No grandparents, no one, until about 6 weeks in when they were stable. The NICU's policy was that no one could visit without one of the parents physically present and in the room at all times. I would have been BEYOND LIVID if grandma was even allowed in, let alone allowed with a non-family visitor and then permitted to disregard sterile procedures. If it were me, I would be suing everyone even remotely connected. If I have to sign consents for life saving procedures to be performed then I better be asked for consent, in writing, for non medically necessary procedures.
You need certain things to bring a valid civil action against someone. One of those things is damages. It's the law. Some states may have different variations on this idea in statute but generally it's common law.
I give a big WTF to the NICU staff, both NICUs A was in had the same policy, 2 people at a time max and a non-parent could only enter the NICU wing with a parent.
you don't have to have physical damages to have a case. This case could probably survive on emotional damages
I thought in most jurisdictions you had to have physical damages before you can ask for emotional? Exception being the mishandling of a corpse or some such. I'm reaching way back to torts here.
I'm curious what the NICU rules are for this hospital too. At ours we were allowed to put up to a few people on the "ok to visit" list without a parent present. Anyone else had to be with a parent. I wonder if this hospital was the same way and Grandma was on an ok list and took advantage of it. At any rate, I give a big side eye to the staff in this case.
I'm curious what the NICU rules are for this hospital too. At ours we were allowed to put up to a few people on the "ok to visit" list without a parent present. Anyone else had to be with a parent. I wonder if this hospital was the same way and Grandma was on an ok list and took advantage of it. At any rate, I give a big side eye to the staff in this case.
Being on the OK list for visitation means she can VISIT. Not arrange a baptism by an outside clergyman behind the parents' backs.
Also, Grandma having visitation privileges does not mean the PRIEST had any business being there without the parents' authorization.
I don't see how the NICU visitation policy is relevant to this issue.
How is it not relevant? NICU security is supposed to be heavily enforced. The staff dropped the ball by letting the priest get to the kid in the first place. I am agreeing with you here. I just think some of the blame falls on the staff in this case.
I'm also wondering how the priest accessing the baby is not a HIPAA violation, since we know the parents didn't authorize this access. (again, Grandma's approval is not good enough as she is not the child's legal guardian)
Lawyers, please weigh in.
HIPAA does not create a private right of action. Note that this lawsuit was filed in state court. I doubt it's asserting any federal causes of action.
Also, I haven't reviewed HIPAA in a while, but I don't think there is anything in the regulations that would apply hear. HIPAA is all about protected health information and privacy policies regarding that information, not priests visiting children.
Please note that I am in no way defending the hospital or the priest. And like Septimus, without having read the complaint, I would assume it alleges damages of emotional distress.