ON CHISOM ANEKWE: Through An Eagle's Eye

Dante Playing The Devil's Advocate

NB: This is going to be a very long post. Even by my standards. So, pull up a chair, and grab a cup of coffee.

One more thing: ditch ALL sentiments, or take your leave!

FOREWORD :

Social media operates a fuel-and-tire jungle justice system: burn him and ask questions later.

Once a story breaks, especially one with an emotional undertone, it turns the best of us into a casserole of hormones: we swallow it hook, line and sinker, and start baring our fangs based on it. No room is given for the other side of the story. That is even when the "other side" has the luxury of offering its own side of the story.

But what of when that "other side" is robbed of that luxury by ethics? When the confidentiality clause buries you in a sea of silence? You're being dragged across the streets of social media, tarred and feathered with PERHAPS tags you're not guilty of, and your thoughts crystalizes into a glowing coal in your mouth, but you have to keep it back, because ethics! Doing otherwise would be breaking doctor-patient privilege.

The worst court where a doctor can be tried is the social media court. You can only look on, you can't even offer a word in your own defense! Terrible experience. I have been there. Once.

So, this is me playing the Devil's Advocate, stepping in in defence of those who cannot speak for themselves, being silenced​ by the bitchy dictates of the ethics of the profession. And I plan to be doing it more often, especially whenever I read a story that exudes the stench of a rat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

If you're still the type that believe EVERYTHING you read online about someone dying in a hospital out of "negligence," you need to reassess your gullibility ratings.

Some of those posts, when I read them, and see the inconsistencies, the way the words are carefully​ crafted to make the hospital look bad, the gross misrepresentation of facts, exaggerations, and misinterpretation of genuine interventions, I just laugh, shake my head, and move on.

Why? Because we're emotional beings, casserole of hormones , and we don't care for objectivity, neither do we care about knowing the truth; we only find the jungle-justice mentality more appealing. So, if you go to such a post to point out the gross misrepresentation of facts, exaggerations​, and perhaps genuine misunderstanding, you would be called INSENSITIVE. And you would be told that someone is dead, and you're there rationalizing. No one cares whether what you have to say is true; all they would want is blood: kill and ask questions later.

In Nigerian hospitals, PEOPLE DON'T DIE FROM NATURAL CAUSES. No; any death recorded is due to "negligence," "gross incompetence," and the "lackadaisical attitude" of the Medical team.

Sometimes I try to be more understanding​, because I know what grief can do, and how it can cloud people's judgement, and make 5 minutes, for instance, seem like an hour. I understand, because I see it in my patients EVERYDAY. Just about two weeks​ ago, a friend lost her child in a hospital, and the way she presented​ it to me, you would think the doctors took a knife and slashed the child's throat. But after listening, I calmed her down and explained to her what actually happened. Initially, she thought I was just protecting my colleagues, not until after an independent organisation hired by her hubby, to investigate the death, came at the same conclusions​.

We are trained people, and we can smell a rat from a distance. When we read such stories, we don't read it with the eyes with which you do. We analyse and scrutinize every bit of it. And there are some kind of inconsistencies, impossible claims, and outright display of [perhaps genuine] ignorance, that we will see, and we will just laugh, shake our heads and move on. Also, when we see a genuine claim, devoid of sentimental theatrics, like the case of that child that Cathy Omo is passionate about, we know; and you will see us come out en masse, guns blazing.
Unfortunately, people will read this post and still come here to accuse me of being an insensitive demon. Well I'm not; I am just someone who is dispassionate in judgement, someone who prefers to follow the hot "facts" presented, and not a cold trail of emotions. Sob stories, and emotional appeals, don't move me; facts do. Call it an occupational hazard, and you may be damn right. If the facts presented isn't convincing to me, I don't hesitate to say so, at the risk of being labeled an insensitive demon. If tomorrow, the facts says otherwise, I also won't hesitate to admit being wrong in my judgement in the first place.
What people don't know is that, the hospital, or the doctor, the image of which you slur, is also an organization, or a human being, with dependents. So, if you accuse any of them wrongly, you're as guilty as the doctor who's actually guilty of murder through gross negligence. This is why we ask for proof when someone comes to social media to slur the image of a hospital, or a doctor, or anybody. Unfortunately, what we usually get is a one-sided story, as the doctor, or hospital, may have their hands tied by ethics [of not breaking privilege]. Some bitchy circumstance; I have been there.
For the records I advocate that any suspected case of negligence, and or malpractice, be thoroughly investigated, and the guilty ones be made to face the full music of the law. But I am also a logical being, dispassionate in reasoning and judgement: I follow the facts, not the trail of emotions. If that earns me the tag "insensitive demon," then so be it. I wear tags damn fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ANALYSIS OF THE "ONE-SIDED" ACCOUNT.
This is solely based on the one-sided story available to all of us. I don't know anybody who works in Magodo Specialist Hospital, as a matter of fact, I heard of the hospital for the very first time today. And as such I don't have further insight into the story, other than what you all know. So, my take on this, MAY BE WRONG!
.
CONCERN 1
Admitted for FOUR days, on account of an earlier diagnosis​ of Hypertension in pregnancy.
.
From this, we can pick four things;
1. The woman most likely had Pre-eclampsia.
2. The woman, and/or the baby, was unstable. You don't admit a pregnant woman, near term, for no just cause, for 4 good days! Must be some serious issue.
3. In that 4 days, they were trying to stabilize her, and her baby
4. In that 4 days, they must have discussed delivery options with her, including CS! [makes me wonder why the hubby only gave consent intrapartum, during delivery, when things were going south]. In Pre-eclampsia, the rule is to deliver the baby through "fastest, safest, possible means."

CONCERN 2
"While at the hospital, no one attended to her when she needed the help to deliver the long awaited​ baby. She was left for hours in labor.....until the husband created a scene , which eventually caused the doctors to go to her ward"
.
Right. Unstable Pre-eclamptic woman, admitted FOUR GOOD DAYS PRIOR, goes into labor, and suddenly there's no one in the ward. No doctor. No labor ward nurses. And she was left in labor FOR HOURS.

CONCERN 3
Baby dies from "neglect," during the course of labor.
.
For a hypertensive woman to be admitted for FOUR GOOD DAYS prior to the onset of labor, it is a no-brainier that she had severe hypertension.
Severe hypertension affects​ the placental unit in NO SMALL WAY, and puts the baby at an enormous risk of distress.
With the onset of labor, the distress would only worsen, and in the worse case scenario, it wouldlead to fetal demise.
Question is, why do you think a doctor admitted mother and child for FOUR GOOD DAYS? Do you honestly think that in those four days, that delivery options were not being discussed, and CS offered to save a distressed child, and perhaps turned down? If not, so why did they​ admit her for four days, to play ten-ten?
I will let the Ob-Gyns answer this.

CONCERN 4
"The husband at this point requested for a CS, which he PAID for, and signed the consent form presented by the hospital."
.
Anyone with a discerning mind knows that that should have read, "the husband, seeing that things were going south, FINALLY AGREED, and gave consent for surgery AS EARLIER ADVISED."
Like I have said uncountable number of times already; for mother and child to be admitted for 4 days, especially where the woman is Pre-eclamptic, it means that the woman is either unstable, or the baby in distress. And that delivery options, including CS, would have been discussed, and perhaps declined.
Now, who "suggests," and pays for CS, during the course of a labor, if not he who had earlier been given that option earlier, but turned it down?
I challenge any doctor, home and abroad, to disprove, or infact CONTEST, this claim. I'm betting 50k on it!

CONCERN 5
"He [the husband] was then TRICKED out of the room to go prepare for blood transfusion."

I would like to see this doctor, who was PAID cool cash for CS, and he was busy "tricking" people out of CS, thereby picking his own pocket! Yes; because he would have to refund the money. Damn it!
And oh, blood is needed for CS. It is a fact, a necessity, and not a trick!

CONCERN 6
"On getting back, he found out that the doctors had induced the wife, and delivered the baby without operation, not minding that the CS procedure had been paid for. And this was done without his consent."

1. Unless he went to get the blood from Pluto, there's no way they would have finished "inducing" [it's augmenting, by the way] the woman, and the woman achieved adequate uterine contraction, and full cervical dilation subsequently, and then delivered, before he came back! So, most likely, labor, which was already in the active phase, progressed on its own!
2. So, because he'd already paid for CS, if the doctors/nurses see the baby's head coming out, they should push it back in and say, "Oga don already pay o! Stay back there, make him money for no waste" ? Or if the baby's head is coming out, they will first of all go and obtain consent for taking delivery?
3. A dead baby is NOT AN ABSOLUTE INDICATION for CS! I wouldn't do CS for a dead baby, if I can avoid it, except if it was an obstructed labor. Most people wouldn't, because what is the essence of putting the mother through such stress? Unless of course, there were OTHER COMPELLING indications.
4. The rule in Pre-eclampsia is to deliver the baby and placenta through the "fastest, SAFEST, possible means!"
So, unless that woman was still in latent phase, I won't do a CS. And obviously she was in active phase, reason she delivered shortly after the husband left!

CONCERN 7
"During the course of the delivery, the uterus [initially they said it was the placenta o] ruptured, and the doctors left her like that, no further attendance."
.
1. Dear doctors in the house;
a. Can a uterus rupture after delivery?
b. Or if it happened before, or during delivery; can a ruptured uterus contract enough to expell a baby?
c. Can a woman with a ruptured Uterus, who's bleeding inside the abdomen, anemic, and perhaps in shock, muster enough maternal effort to push out the baby?
2. These doctors, and nurses, must be Draculas, to see a woman who was having PPH-- Bleeding after delivery [I believe that's what happened],and "leave her like that with no further attendance."
Who here has seen PPH before? Scary thing.

CONCERN 8
Doctors getting ready for an interventional surgery, and dilly-dallying about it. Hence "preparation took longer than usual."
.
Yes; now we know that the man was also a hospital staff. He has witnessed preparation for surgery before, and even timed it. That was how he knew this one took a longer time.

CONCERN 9
Doctor "SNEAKS" out.
.
1. Which doctor? The one preparing for surgery? Another one, perhaps?
2. So, he "sneaked" out. To what end? I would like to know.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
I don't know if there was negligence, or not. I can't vouch for anyone, especially since I wasn't there. But going by THIS story, THIS account, all I see is grief clouding one's judgement, and GUILT [of declining CS earlier] making someone desperate enough to look for where to transfer blame to.
However, there's still a minute possibility that THIS account is true, that the writer only added some seasoning to it so as to draw public sympathy. But that's the problem, people! When you exaggerate facts, when you intentionally misrepresent facts, when you use carefully chosen words stringed together to make another look bad, you LOSE CREDIBILITY, and CREATE DOUBT in all DISCERNING MINDS!
.
I do hope for justice. TRUE JUSTICE. And not the sentimental BS of the social media mob, who are easily swayed by sentimental stories, and only understands the fuel-and-tire kind of Justice.
For this reason, I will be signing the petition for a full inquiry, and investigation of this case. You should too.
May TRUTH, whatever it is, TRIUMPH. PEACE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS
If you're coming to this post with sentimental BS, and emotional blackmail, MISS ME WITH IT.
If you come here with a story of how your father, or mother, or brother,or sister, or friend, was killed by a Nigerian doctor, I would advise you to shove it, and stick to THIS case.
If you're coming here for a rational discourse, grab a drink; you're welcome.

#Respects_To_The_dead

Chibuike Joseph Chukwudum

If I am the parents of this girl and I confirm he actually refused to sign. I will make him curse the day he came for her hand in marriage. When my mum was warning my husband about this, (just in case it gets to using CS) I thought she was overreacting.

Mophasa:
Such an epistle

Who can summarise

RIP beautiful mummy, the heavens just got another angel