digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailymail.co.uk

Wrong Woman Given Abortion After Nurse Mixed Up Patients

dailymail.co.uk — A woman was given a chemical abortion tablet by mistake after a nurse mixed up two patients with the same first name, a misconduct hearing has heard. Ann Downer gave the drug to a woman who had gone into the clinic for an initial consultation. When staff realised what had happened the distraught woman, named only as patient A, was called back to...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hwy61revisited, on 07/18/2008, -30/+67Talk about incompetence! I feel terrible for the woman who was given that drug.
    • zyklon, on 07/19/2008, -3/+11I would be SO PISSED.
      • ToadLeg, on 07/19/2008, -2/+93Title is inaccurate/misleading: She was going to get an abortion, she was just given the wrong type of abortion pills. It's an incredible *****, but nobody accidentally got their baby aborted.

        BURY AS INACCURATE
      • DyceFreak, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8thanks toad for the clairifications

        seems like there are some desperate ppl on here... sad its come to this..
        This story sure as hell isn't interesting or inferriating any more and shouldn't be on digg at all.
        upick is just a low life...
      • Spuy767, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3"Inferriating?" Is that when you get so mad that you turn to iron?
      • rpgmaker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Thanks Toad. What is wrong with digg, seriously? Now I'm forced to really bury some stories, I didn't care before but now this is getting out of hand.
    • dawgma, on 07/19/2008, -0/+16Yeah... you didn't even read the article, did you?
      • thingamajig, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8I didn't read the article and I"M MAD AS HELL!!!
    • tomz17, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10... sure it's a mess up... but ... she was there for an abortion... she got an abortion...
      • evilbob333, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1She went in for an initial consultation. That doesn't mean she was going to go through with an abortion. And if she was having doubts or second thoughts....Well to late now.
    • insomniac8400, on 07/19/2008, -4/+6OH NOES! A woman wanting an abortion got one. She is going to be devastated going to court to get undeserved free money.
      • darkstar949, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't say undeserved free money would really apply in this case - regardless of the fact that she was there to get an abortion, the procedure was being carried out incorrectly which is medical malpractice. Since this caused the women pain and distress that is suitable grounds for a lawsuit.

        Ideally, something like this should have been handled with the staff and the patient without involving the courts (e.g. "We messed up, we apologize, your money is being refunded, we are working to ensure this never happens again.") but sometimes this doesn't always happen.
      • fantasyflamz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2The abortion pill only really works safely for those under 7-8 weeks of pregnancy and she was 9 weeks. She could have been seriously hurt/died (yes, the chances of dying from a pill like that are actually higher than taking aspirin or something like that, especially that she was over the time limit). It's the same as giving another person the wrong medicine... for some people it can be dangerous and cause them pain.
      • evilbob333, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1How does medical liability work in Britain's government run health care system? According to the article there was what appears to be a medical review board, but I would think all legal settlements would wind up being paid for by the government (if any).
    • antechinus, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12We need to bring back old technology - it is a lot harder to administer coat hanger wire to the wrong person.
  • karlw, on 07/18/2008, -40/+263The women given the wrong pill was in an abortion clinic. Even if no words were spoken, she still took a pill that was given to her in a abortion clinic. She wasn't expecting a fertility pill. This is more like a "woopsie-doodle", sensational headline, so-so story.
    (dugg for my own comment)
    • sc0rpi0n, on 07/19/2008, -4/+59The problem is she could be dead taking the wrong pill. Abortion pills are not your typical Aspirin or Paracetamol. The nurse obviously didn't carry out the procedures correctly.
      • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 07/19/2008, -5/+36I agree. I didn't see anywhere in that article where patient A asked what the pill was. Yes, the nurse was ignorant, but so was patient A for swallowing the pill. I don't care if the surgeon general personally hands me a pill, I'm going to ask what it is before it goes in my mouth. Somebody neglected to tell her not to take random pills without knowing what they are.
      • fitzal77, on 07/19/2008, -16/+11Somebody also neglected to tell her not to have unprotected sex without wanting a baby.
      • josephbloseph, on 07/19/2008, -0/+15The problem is that the headline "wrong woman given abortion" is misleading. It takes the normal headline "patient receives improper drug/dose/surgery" that we're all so familiar with, and gives us the sense that an abortion was administered in the case of a planned pregnancy; interesting, as the original article puts '' around the word 'wrong', making quite a bit of difference
      • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10Fitzal, how do you know she'd been having unprotected sex? Those two words don't even appear in the article. Presumptuous much?
      • Goblin, on 07/19/2008, -2/+11@Fitzal, I have two kids, both of whom were conceived while my wife was on the pill.

        Not unplanned, just earlier than expected :)
      • pronabol, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9Sounds like your wife had it planned.
    • amoro99, on 07/19/2008, -27/+4Nowhere does the article refer to it as an "abortion clinic".
      • xShifty, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5She was there to get an abortion
      • enclaved, on 07/19/2008, -0/+21It kinda did..sorry!

        "The first woman attended the Calthorpe Clinic"

        Calthorpe Clinic | Abortion advice, abortion choice, abortion help ...
        A private surgical clinic in Birmingham specialising in abortion.
        www.calthorpe-clinic.co.uk/ - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

        Due diligence, try it.
      • Lukesed, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9Here is their website:
        http://www.calthorpe-clinic.co.uk/

        "About Calthorpe":
        "The Calthorpe Clinic in Birmingham supports the right for people to limit their family. It was the first abortion provider to open a clinic outside London. For 40 years, it has been providing surgical and medical terminations for thousands of women each year."
      • macaddct1984, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7FTA: "The first woman attended the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham - which offers abortion, sterilisation and vasectomy - in October, 2006."

        FTS: "We aim to provide good quality, safe and affordable services in accordance with professional standards to both private individuals and on contract to the NHS for termination of pregnancy, sterilisation and vasectomy."
        http://www.calthorpe-clinic.co.uk/
      • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3That's more a demonstration of the journalistic integrity of the Daily Fail.
    • Cone, on 07/19/2008, -4/+16Um. She was there for an initial consultation and given a pill that the medical community had decided shouldn't be used in pregnancies of over 9 weeks -- which this was. That is WAY more than an "oops." Chemicals in the body when they should not be is not a good thing.
    • paranoid614, on 07/19/2008, -0/+17dugg for digging your dugg comment
      • MtheoryX, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2dugg for digging his digging of his dugg comment.
      • kpaphysicist, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3sweet honey bee of infinity
    • bucketheadhead, on 07/19/2008, -0/+9dugg for "woopsie-doodle"
    • BlackPawn, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Other than pain, it doesn't really say anything about the ramifications of what happened, just that there was a mix-up and someone was given the wrong medicine. The doctors advised a chemical abortion, but it's not like she went in to check up on her baby and ended up having it aborted (which is what I thought after reading the title). Worse things have happened to my father at the hospital, but it never made head-line news. However, what happened is pretty horrible and shows yet another example of medical incompetence... which seems to be getting worse and worse. This kind of ***** needs to stop.
    • chlyon, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I dugg your comments to
  • rock774, on 07/19/2008, -69/+17murder
    • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -3/+13Nope.
    • mirunit, on 07/19/2008, -10/+2No offense to anyone, but what exactly do you call preventing a human being from living? You see, the idea that it would of been okay to stop me from living the life I live now because someone did not 'want' me is a bit disturbing. Also, how exactly can someone be tried for double murder for killing a pregnant woman but the mother is allowed to kill the fetus without consequence?
      • BlackPawn, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8I disagree with 3rd trimester abortions, and i think that 2nd trimester abortions are waiting too long. However, if a person gets pregnant and gets an abortion because she is simply not ready to be a parent I see nothing wrong with it. At that point I consider it like semen... it has the potential for life, given proper conditions and chemical reactions but it's really just a wad of cells but it's not a person. I'd rather see more early abortions than unfit parents who can't raise and/or feed their children or just shove it in a foster home. Abortion isn't murder... often times it's the best thing someone in that situation can do.
      • mirunit, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1What exactly makes a human then? Also, how can the law prosecute people for killing animals and such if they are not human but rather a collection of organic cells? Also you never answered the question about double murder with relation to a pregnant woman.
      • kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Preventing it from living is different than stopping its life when it has already begun. The fetus won't know that it's missed anything; it never "lived" out in the world in the first place. BlackPawn is simply stating some truths that don't sound very pleasant to people dedicated to calling a tiny ball of cells a "human being", "unborn baby" or "pre-born American". mirunit, your point about double murder is well-taken and probably relates to the fact that women should never be forced to lose their pregnancies; I'd wager that it's largely due to the desire to severely punish people who kill pregnant women because of the vile nature of an attack on such a helpless woman. This isn't meant to be condescending, of course; I think we all agree that carrying a watermelon-sized mass of child in one's abdominal cavity severely restricts one's self-defense ability. So the legislation is likely more an attempt to punish the criminal even farther than to humanize the fetus, and if it is an attempt at the latter, I'd wager it was pushed through by anti-choice legislators. Does that answer your question?
  • haxcorner, on 07/19/2008, -17/+13That kinda sucks.
  • spankr, on 07/19/2008, -29/+223Buried - Headline is so misleading! There is no "wrong woman" in this story. A woman, who was going for a chemical abortion was given the second stage pill instead of the first stage pill.
    • DistortedHumor, on 07/19/2008, -10/+33"Miss Downer failed to carry out the identity checks and gave the drug to a patient who was only due to have an initial visit. That would have involved a consultation with a doctor, blood tests and a scan.

      Patients at the first stage after the initial consultation are given a tablet of Mifepristone to swallow, which stops the growth of the foetus."

      It's possible that the woman could've decided to carry out the pregnancy after the consultation. Many women consult and then decide to have or not have the child. Putting her in an abortion clinic trying to educate herself on her decision doesn't make the outcome any less upsetting for me.
      • Tenlow, on 07/19/2008, -1/+16Actually I'm pretty sure all women who have a consultation choose to either have or not have the baby.
      • kufu91, on 07/19/2008, -0/+20if you were just consulting, why would you take their pills?
      • Goblin, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1The pill she should have got was one to stop the growth of her foetus and would have been the first pill to take to start the abortion procedure. The pill she got was the second pill if undergoing a chemical abortion used in the first nine weeks.
      • flip2trip, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1You people missed it entirely. The first pill is given AFTER the initial consultation. This would be AFTER the tests to evaluate the patient. No pills are given the patient during the consultation so the patient was stupid in that regard. Of course abortion is stupid anyway.

        And this title is misleading as she was there for an abortion.
      • moomincharlie, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1@flip2trip abortions aren't "stupid".

        What an enraging thing to say!

    • Trots, on 07/19/2008, -7/+13Er.. no she was going in for a consultation. Consultation =/= abortion. Why is this guy getting dugg?
      • UnMannedMission, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Not necessarily, there's always this thing called second thought. And besides spankr was off with the routine procedure. Consultation ->first pill->second pill. I just want to know what person takes a pill without any inquiry.
      • bphicke, on 07/19/2008, -11/+6Because diggers thing being anti-life means you are a hip liberal.
      • BrainInAJar, on 07/19/2008, -7/+4No, being anti-life makes you a conservative.

        I mean, death penalty, war... how is that "pro-life" ?
      • tim3094, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3854,122 abortions in 2003 (Wikipedia), that is a lot more than the number who are executed (since republicans went into power, has fallen from 85 per year to 42) and the number that die in Iraq (90,061 - 97,875 using data from www.iraqbodycount.org and www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm).

        Also you can make a case that those on death row deserve it, and some who die in Iraq deserve it (while most are killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqis, not by US troops, so the US government is not really directly responsible) I do recognize that many killed in Iraq are innocent, and their deaths are tragic. However, those killed in abortions have done nothing wrong and deserve a chance at life.
    • swern425, on 07/19/2008, -0/+13I understand that she was going in for a consultation, but she certainly should've asked what drugs she was being given considering that she was only being consulted and not there for actual treatment.
      • BlackPawn, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Agreed.
        "The first woman attended the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham - which offers abortion, sterilisation and vasectomy"

        I always ask the doctor what medicine I'm supposed to take and what it does before hand, as should everyone else, especially in a place like that. Make sure you know what you're taking BEFORE you take it.
    • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -2/+13http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_mi ...

      BBC is superior
    • diggitydad, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Why are people digging this up? The pill was given to the wrong person. That it turned out OK in THIS instance doesn't negate the fact the mistake was made.
    • juicebag, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Typical daily mail story.
    • fantasyflamz, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1There is no second stage pill for abortions... she would be getting a surgical abortion not a medical one since she was older than 8 weeks. The problem is having her take the pills was not only wrong, but it was potentially very dangerous to her. There is a chance she could get things really messed up, not be able to have a child ever again, or even death. This is the issue. Women over 8 weeks are not supposed to take the pills because of the risks and although it worked okay in this situation, she could have been seriously hurt by the medicine and it was a huge mistake to have made.
  • zoom1928, on 07/19/2008, -19/+5And the real issue with the story are the so-called privacy laws that are designed to harm patients. I work on medical scheduling/billing software, and I know several of my customers that have hurt patients because of HIPPA (thank you Hillary Clinton). Not being allowed to use the last name or making it nearly impossible to get medical paperwork makes these sort of mistakes very easy to make. Something as basic as finding-out if a patient is allergic to Penicillin or certain anethesics is impossible thanks to Hillary Clinton.
    • SammyJr, on 07/19/2008, -5/+11So you blame your customers' incompetence on Hillary Clinton? Lame.

      It would also help if you knew that the act was HIPAA as in Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Incidently, Clinton also had nothing to do with it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA

      Are you sure you don't just clean the trash cans at a company that makes medical scheduling/billing software?
      • orthodoxDrew, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2well, the Clintons certainly supported, promoted, and took some credit for HIPAA

        and i think the question is closer to: part of your job is protecting privacy of your patients, so if you don't like that and just want to do paperwork, why don't you enter the corporate world?
    • Ribbo, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10Dude this happened in England, nothing to do with Hilary Clinton.
    • stonedthot, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2You work on medical scheduling/billing software and you spell anaesthetics.... "anethesics"?!? Oh dear.. And generally patients know if they are allergic to Penecillin, you take a history and ask them what medications they are on and if they have ever had an allergic reaction to any medications, generally its something a patient remembers.
      • jasonalangraves, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I have had many patients who don't even know or remember what medications they take, and frequently, patients do not remember the name of the drug they had an allergic reaction to years before.

        Over a lifetime, many people have taken hundreds of different drugs, some for common colds, and some for severe illness. In the case of a severe illness, or even trauma for that matter, a patient will be in a hospital having numerous different drugs given, and in a healthy state, a patient might take note, but in coma, or, severe pain, vomiting, coughing, blurred vision, and more, these patients just want to feel better, not know the details on the packaging leaflet.

        This is why the patients chart or medical record is so important. It's a record of the past history of the patient, containing details the patient may not remember or remembers in a different context than what is useful for the doctor. It happens often that a patient will equate any bad effect of a drug with allergy to that drug. While it is safe to assume allergy from the anti-litigative perspective, with some drugs, alternatives do not exist or would not be the best choice, so it's good to review the past history to see how the adverse reaction was characterized.

        An adverse effects and side effects are not the same as allergic reactions. There are even some drugs whose main purpose is to elicit an allergic reaction.

        A patient, for example, may take an antibiotic that also happens to be photo-sensitizing, goes to the beach, develops a rash as a consequence of the chemical and physical properties of the antibiotic, and comes back reporting an allergy when in fact this is a normal and expected reaction for that circumstance.

        It would be unprofessional to rely only upon the memory of a patient. If there is no documented history, ok, but if you know a patient was seen at clinic X three years before, it is important to request these records from that clinic. For recent and acute, or self limited disease, this past history is of reduced importance, up until about the age of 40 or 50, then it's nice to have all past records at every visit. Nice, but so far, never happens.

        It's an interesting topic, and there is quite a lot of research about the patient-doctor relationship, vice versa, the role of the patient and more.

        While many patients do know what drugs they are allergic to, many don't, and these two groups seem divided in such a way that generalizations can't be made.
      • stonedthot, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Well I don't know the American system but over here in the UK medical records are generally always available, in my experience anyway. You obviously know what you're talking about and I'm well aware of the points you raised like the difference between an adverse and an allergic reaction so next time don't ruin it with atrocious spelling (from original post). At the end of the day the ***** up was that the nurse didn't confirm full name and date of birth when the patient arrived in the room. Its like the first thing you are taught.
  • damian7, on 07/19/2008, -33/+10OMG, this is proof that abortion must stop! Think about the baby! Human life! Damn liberals and them making me pay for abortions and increased sex, also ***** evolution. RAWR, Vote McCain
    • dasdef, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5yes and they have nails!!
    • Me1000, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6I assume you heard about the man that Dick Cheney shot in the face?

      Time to ban guns too!
      • zyklon, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Or power generating windmills! They kill birds! But CATS kill more! I think we should ban cats!
      • Me1000, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7I think Damian's post was edited to make it seem more like a joke... that "RAWR" and "***** evolution" wasnt there before...
    • B08ama, on 07/19/2008, -4/+4Either this is a joke or your brain is.
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -6/+1can anyone supply an actual argument against pro-life other than you're dumb, you're brain is a joke, stop talking, etc.?
      • Me1000, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3your*


        I dont think anyone is against pro-life...
        It is simply that people thing a woman should have a choice to keep an unborn child. Against pro-life would mean that you are against people having children.
      • samthurston, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3i cannot supply arguments against pro-life as readily as i can supply arguments against anti-choice. People who think abortion should be legal and performed in hospitals instead of with rusty hangers in a dirty alleyway are not by neccesity "anti-life." However, if you want to restrict someone else's legal choice on what to do with their own body, then that pretty much makes you "anti-choice."
      • stonedthot, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1*Wolfgun87* Yes, yes I can
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0ok...
        i actually would like to hear it
        i'm interested in knowing that side of the argument
        i'm not being sarcastic
        i would seriously like to know
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0so the morals are based on actions?
        if it's done poorly then it's bad
        if it's done safely then it's ok
        ???????
        does anyone have unwavering morals anymore?
    • forceuser, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1Hurrr
    • drfluffer, on 07/19/2008, -9/+0People are digging you down because they don't want to hear the truth.
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0exactly
      • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4hahahahaha... I hope you're being just as sarcastic as the original poster, but then again, Poe's Law's a bitch.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/19/2008, -9/+1If you were serious about voting for McCain you would not be supporting the candidate Obama in your profile.
      • samthurston, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4See, I wonder where intelligent people might get the idea that McCain supporters can't understand context. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT SARCASM IS ALWAYS IN ALL-CAPS ON THE INTERNET!
    • Jeffler, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Guys, this is blatant sarcasm, I dont' see how it's being missed.
    • damian7, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4You guys are absolutely ***** idiots

      Mega whoosh, Me1000, you are also an extra stupid ***** moron
      • JoeVet, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately there are many who actually believe and write the same idiotic sentiments that you just did. There is no way of determining if you are one of the nuts or simply being sarcastic by your post. It is a sad commentary on the prevalence of ignorance in our society but that is what it is. For you to then bad mouth those who took you seriously shows that you yourself do not realize how ubiquitous are those expressed sentiments. This is after all a written media and we cannot see your expression or gain any visual clues that would suggest you are anything other than serious.
    • stonedthot, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Over here we joke about you yanks not getting sarcasm, but seriously... That's just taking the piss
    • juicebag, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Anyone who buried you got trolled.
  • ThePerkins, on 07/19/2008, -15/+34That nurse puts the pro in pro-choice.
    • PabloMac, on 07/19/2008, -20/+6"Pro Choice" = Pro Death
      • blast_flame, on 07/19/2008, -3/+10"Pro-Life"=Pro-slavery
        Such things can be twisted around both ways.
      • Goblin, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Killing doctors != Pro-life
      • PabloMac, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2Abortion is killing, so the 'Pro Choice" = Pro Death logic is solid.

        I'd like to hear such solid logic for your "Pro-Life" = Pro-slavery argument.
      • blast_flame, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Well seeing that "Pro-life" removes some of people's control over their bodies it is an increase in slavery.
        Pro-choice is not so much pro-death as it is anti-shady back alleyway abortions.
        Even if we assume the government could magically stop all abortions then it would still not be anymore pro-death than a meal with any meat in it as what is being aborted is not a intelligent, thinking, sapient entity.
      • Phyraxus, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2@ pablomac: So I guess scratching your nose is pro-genocide then? You are killing millions of cells when you do it, I hope you know.
    • diadem2, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6and takes away the choice part?
    • izzy86, on 07/19/2008, -1/+0wow. that got me a good laugh. thanks perkins.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/19/2008, -6/+37Where exactly did they get this article... I mean, the Daily Mail isn't really the most credible news source, it's a tabloid.
    • Mononuclear, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14Yes this is shocking but I don't believe anything that comes from Daily Mail. If the BBC posts this then I will believe it really happened and the facts haven't been twisted.

      Digg please stop digging sensational crap from tabloids. You all complain about the media focusing on gossip about Britney Speares and Paris Hilton and then you digg ***** from a UK tabloid.
      • simg, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1well, the headline was twisted ...
      • wedeservedit, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0The BBC is not the most reliable source either....
    • jascination, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10I agree...I'll believe it when I hear it from a real news source.

      Seriously people, linking to The Daily Mail is just like linking to a story from "Hello!", "Heat" or "Women's Weekly". The paper may have an 'official' sounding name, but everyone in England knows it to be sensationalist *****.
    • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_mi ...
    • chispito, on 07/19/2008, -6/+0Sorry, would you rather wait until it comes up on Huffingtonpost or Thinkprogress? Most of the news stories on here come from sketchy sources.
    • Archon810, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1This article was painful to read. Repeats on top of repeats on top of repeats. It's like watching Celeb TV but in text. ugh
  • socoolisme, on 07/19/2008, -11/+2Her face must of been red.
    • longcat99, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6must have
    • socoolisme, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3I try to make fun of the situation but everyone just tears me down. What's wrong with you digg community, you used to be cool.
  • peticsu, on 07/19/2008, -7/+38she mustve took the red pill
  • RocqueMarketing, on 07/19/2008, -11/+4If it is true or not that is pretty sad.
    • insomniac8400, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1You are what is wrong with the world.
      • chispito, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1Not famine, not war, not disease, not poverty, no. It's someone who makes an ill-thought-out post on the Internet. That's quite the perpsective you're employing, there.
  • ThePerkins, on 07/19/2008, -9/+3One of these preggos has escaped the matrix.
  • Tr3mulant, on 07/19/2008, -18/+6Only 89 diggs so far, so the religious wackos should honing in on this one shortly.
  • Nairebis, on 07/19/2008, -4/+36This is not quite as horrible as it seems at first glance -- both patients were in for abortions, the "wrong" patient just got a pill instead of a consultation. The nurse claims she gave consent -- which makes sense, since what idiot would take a pill in an abortion clinic when she's just there for a consultation?
    • Trots, on 07/19/2008, -7/+13"Consultation" isn't equivalent to abortion. Abortion clinics offer alternatives, including adoption. She was given an abortion without her consent, and that is horrible.
      • LemmingJesus, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3She took the pill didn't she? Nobody forced her right? Sounds like consent. How can you argue that she didn't want an abortion when she's the one that did it?
    • fantasyflamz, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1The problem in having her take the pills was not only wrong, but it was potentially very dangerous to her. There is a chance she could get things really messed up, not be able to have a child ever again, or even death. This is the issue. Women over 8 weeks are not supposed to take the pills because of the risks and although it worked okay in this situation, she could have been seriously hurt by the medicine and it was a huge mistake to have made.
  • amoro99, on 07/19/2008, -14/+3dugg for the spelling 'foetus'
    • saxreturns, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2So you dugg it because they're using a UK English dictionary?
  • Trots, on 07/19/2008, -22/+18She should be immediately fired. Without severance pay. "Having the same first name" is no excuse to administer drugs to someone without checking to see if you have the right person.
    • solidcube, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5ha and they dugg you down for saying so. This type of mishap is potentially FATAL.
    • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_mi ...

      the policy of the abortion clinic is to have patients in the waiting room marked only by their first names. She should have checked her other details once she was in the private room, but it sounds like the system was a mistake waiting to happen.
    • iizh, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2That's an angry, emotional, and stupid knee-jerk reaction. This nurse made a mistake and is almost certainly less likely to make it again compared to someone who hasn't. Firing her gets nothing accomplished. The hospital was right to caution her.
      • Chassit, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Disagreed, her mistake could have caused (and arguably did cause) the death of a human being.
    • Chalks777, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Firing people for making mistakes is poor policy. If I could be fired for that [making mistakes], I would have been on my second day of work. Furthermore, @solidcube, people make potentially fatal driving mistakes all the time (not seeing a stop sign, going the wrong way down a one way street, etc) and those people only lose their license upon multiple occurances of the same mistake, or extreme circumstances.

      this: "The Nursing and Midwifery Council said she could keep her job but would have a caution on her record for three years." is the appropriate reponse to this situation.
  • fearlessfx, on 07/19/2008, -10/+28Buried for inaccuracy and stupidity.
  • Havs, on 07/19/2008, -9/+4Cha-Ching!
  • CLAWC, on 07/19/2008, -27/+6OK. HOW many times has this occurred in the past? Uncountable. This needs to stop. If people want to have sex like there's no tomorrow, go ahead. But don't destroy the result from it. Having sex is the PURPOSE of sex. You can use contraceptives but it's still like Russian Roulette. If you get preggo THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS! You can't murder an innocent child. (for all you who are gonna bury me & say "what about rape," a child given up is always better than a child killed.) What's the difference between a baby inside the womb right before birth and one that's newly born? NOTHING. Just like there is no difference between one that is premature & one that is born on time. They are both human beings in the making & despite your religious beliefs, you cannot deny that this is indisputable. Go ahead and bury me for telling the truth. At least I told it.
    • zyklon, on 07/19/2008, -3/+11Stop talking.
    • Owwmykneecap, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1This is my truth tell me yours....

      The manics were right.
    • InfernoX, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12A woman should be allowed to control her body.
      • Narrwald, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3And any others that just happen to be inside of it, apparently.
    • Trots, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14Equivilating using contraceptives to russian roulette. Such a bad comparison.

      And you didn't tell the truth. Or rather, you skewed it. There's a world of difference between a fetus and a baby.
    • DeathRay2K, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8The fact that you think there is no difference between an early foetus and a baby shows how ignorant you are.
    • dood, on 07/19/2008, -1/+10"Having sex is the PURPOSE of sex."

      You got one thing right.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Hey.. remember that Jim Carey movie where he did that thing called "THE CLAW!"?
    • Tsuroerusu, on 07/19/2008, -1/+9"Go ahead and bury me for telling the truth. At least I told it."

      Yes I will digg you down! Because what you told, was your own view of what you see as the truth, while implying serious inhumanity at the same time. If a woman is raped, she's most likely traumatized for life, yet you still think her having an abortion if she got pregnant is evil. So what you're essentially saying is that a woman who was raped (Which is an atrocious crime and a human rights violation at the same time) should have to endure the pains of having a child, and the pains of giving birth, making her suffer even more. Your sense of justice makes me sick to my stomach.

      Oh, and if you feel it's so wrong to kill, ask yourself these simple questions that will highlight potential hypocrisy: Are you in favour of the death penalty? Have you ever been in favour of any wars (Including past ones that took place before you were born) ?
      If the answer is "Yes" in either case, go eat a bug.
      • CLAWC, on 07/19/2008, -6/+2No. I don't think we (as imperfect humans) can decide if someone should live or die. That is up to God. And I hate war. Me and my people refuse to go or support it. Happy?
      • stonedthot, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Your people? Are you from a sect or something?
    • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1i completely agree. i mean seriously even look at our laws. if a pregnant woman is killed then the killer is charged with double homicide but if you have an abortion then it's ok. how does that make sense?

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/02 ...

      does that sound like a human to you?

      some questions for those who don't believe a fetus is alive..
      since the fetus grows from conception and at about 8 weeks is already starting to develop features how do we decide what is life or has life? when the baby breaths? and what is life? by saying it is not a life in the womb but it is a life out of the womb, you are suggesting that there is some sort of life in the child. a soul perhaps? and if a soul or some other life entity, what happens to the life entity when the human body dies and what gives the life since you are suggesting that the life is separate from the flesh. i'm not trying to speak "religiously" at all. it's just a simple question. if we have life, what is it for and what happens to it when our flesh dies?
      just as clawc said, "despite your religious beliefs, you cannot deny [there is no difference between a baby inside the womb right before birth and one that's newly born]."
      • CLAWC, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1Thank you. At least SOME people have 1/2 a brain. If a child is made from a "night of fun," you can't just "solve the problem" by killing it. Hitting air doesn't make a fetus a human. The fact that it has a heart, eyes, brain do. Responsibility is something to be taken seriously.
      • stonedthot, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6Right well if you can't decide what is life how about the trillions upon trillions of sperm that never fertilize an egg and all the eggs that could have been a baby if they had been fertilized. Should we save them all up and make trillions of babies? A line has to be drawn somewhere, get over it
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0well if life begans at conception then that would solve the problem wouldn't it?
        how long have people like us been saying that?
      • CLAWC, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1That's different. You "smart" people should know that a human life starts when sperm and egg COMBINE. Separate, they are not alive. Together, they produce a miracle.
      • kayala, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3But your distinction that "life" begins at point A or point B is completely arbitrary. Every ovum that my ovaries release monthly is "alive" in the sense that it is a live and functioning cell. I could easily declare that menstruation throws away a potential human life every single month and make all women mass murderers. Why don't we believe that crap? Because it's unrealistic and relies heavily on faith with no evidence to back it.
    • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -8/+1it's no pro-choice. it's pro-convenience at the expense of human life.
    • Tsuroerusu, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6"it's no pro-choice. it's pro-convenience at the expense of human life."

      So was the election of George W. Bush, and potential election of John McCain! Please, go back to your damn church and please stay there, until you work out your inhumane sense of justice.
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1that really has nothing to do with this conversation
        try to keep things on topic please
        besides,
        i seriously doubt that people who voted for Bush/may vote for McCain are or were thinking
        let's go to war and kill people
        and unless you are all of the people that voted for Bush or will for McCain,
        then you don't know what all of them were or are thinking
        and you're obviously not...
    • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8"HOW many times has this occurred in the past? Uncountable."
      References?
      "If people want to have sex like there's no tomorrow, go ahead. But don't destroy the result from it."
      The result generally is not pregnancy, when proper precautions are taken. I hope that this statement is an affirmation that you support contraceptive use.
      "Having sex is the PURPOSE of sex."
      Precisely! People have sex because they like it, not just because they want to have children.
      "You can use contraceptives but it's still like Russian Roulette. If you get preggo THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS!"
      Contraceptive use, when responsibly undertaken, is certainly not like Russian roulette. Saying that getting pregnant after taking reasonable precautions is JUST THE WAY IT IS! is like saying that developing cancer after living a normally healthy, active life is JUST THE WAY IT IS!
      "You can't murder an innocent child. (for all you who are gonna bury me & say "what about rape," a child given up is always better than a child killed.)"
      I hope you're ready to take on the adoption system in this country, because if you're going to force unwilling women to bear children that they don't want, guess where those children are going to end up, sunshine? Hint: not in a stable, healthy household.
      "What's the difference between a baby inside the womb right before birth and one that's newly born? NOTHING."
      We certainly don't carry out abortions during labor. I don't imagine that it would be safe to abort during contractions! Most abortions are carried out long before the fetus has time to develop into a more recognizable shape that's ready to be expelled through a small bodily orifice, causing the mother great pain and risking her life. Most abortions, getting back on track, are "chemical abortions" that simply detach a formless ball of cells from the lining of the uterus. Calling this type of abortion murder is like calling me a baby killer for smashing a chicken's egg.
      "Just like there is no difference between one that is premature & one that is born on time."
      Except for the part where premature babies cannot function on their own. I'm not saying that the fact that they can't feed or clothe themselves makes them inviable; I'm saying that the fact that they can't breathe or carry out basic metabolic processes without mechanical help makes them inviable. Severely premature babies die because they are not viable, that is, their bodies cannot function outside the uterus.
      • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0see that's one of the problems
        you think there isn't a difference between a human and a chicken
        there is
        another point
        you say that the baby is inviable so apparently it's ok to kill it
        so when it becomes viable then it's not ok?
        so you think life begins at viability?
      • kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2hahahahahahahahaha
        "you think there isn't a difference between a human and a chicken"
        Come back when you've learned what an analogy is, buckaroo.
      • Squidwalk, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4"so you think life begins at viability?"

        Isn't that sort of how living wills work? You know, those circumstances when people have medical treatment denied to them when they're inviable.

        But that's not entirely fair, I'll concede that a dozen cells or so resulting from a human egg fertilization is alive. I don't think it's particularly human though. There's not a lot that distinguishes it as human. I think kayala's point was that this lack of distinguishable humanity that comes with being in a pre-viable developmental state should result in proxy-rights similar to that of other inviable humans.
    • mirunit, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2"I hope you're ready to take on the adoption system in this country, because if you're going to force unwilling women to bear children that they don't want, guess where those children are going to end up, sunshine? Hint: not in a stable, healthy household."

      1) Who was responsible for creating the child (excluding rape)?

      In my opinion Abortion is sort of like the ultimate escape of responsibility.

      2) So its a good idea to just eliminate the kids chances opposed to possible living in an unstable household? Please note that not all aborted children would of lived in a broken household.
    • WolfGun87, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0I think that all of this can be summed up by one statement. We are not God.
      therefore we should not be taking chances on life
      maybe if everyone realized what self control is we wouldn't have this problem (excluding abortion)
      of course if our laws and judgment systems actually punished people well enough, we probably wouldn't have as many rape cases anyway
      • kayala, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Nobody is "God", because "God" does not exist. We are in control of our own bodies, and offering them up to a supernatural man in the sky is quites imply irresponsible. Are we supposed to accept kidney failure, brain cancer and a shattered femur as "God's decision" and not do anything about it? You're probably a Christian Scientist, aren't you? Gawd help us all if you ever get any power. I'm disgusted that you still think that the solution here is to control the sexuality of all people. We're not animals content to be caged, you know. We're freethinking, autonomous human beings and we are capable of taking responsibility for our actions. Birth control and abortion are two of the best ways to do so. Taking away our options can only make us more irresponsible, more prone to back-alley abortions, and more prone to death as a result of dangerous pregnancies that draconian authoritarians like you wouldn't authorize aborting.
      • WolfGun87, on 07/20/2008, -3/+0No, completely wrong. I am a Christian, but not a scientist. I think your logic is faulty. Taking away options doesn't make someone more irresponsible. We obviously disagree. This country is built on freedom of thought and religious belief. I respect your opinion as well as I hope you respect mine. You do miss the point of God though. He's not a man at all. That's the point. But anyhow, people can do as they please and everyone is responsible for their own actions. That I hope we can agree on.
      • kayala, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Christian Scientists are a bunch of hacks who think that prayer can cure any medical ailment without any real medical help. Needless to say, they've got a lot of blood on their hands.
        Tell me how it's not making people more irresponsible to take away their options to respond to a serious situation in a responsible, safe manner. Really, that's a bit of a paradox.
        I'm glad that we can respect our opinions, and I hope that you can keep your opinion to yourself and practice whatever it is that you believe without taking over ownership of my body. I cordially invite you to tell me that I'm going to Hell for suggesting that women have some bodily integrity; just don't try to rob me of my rights. That's all I ask. I'm not here to debate ideology, because you're not going to change your mind. I'm just here to tell you that my body is mine and you're not going to tell me what I can and cannot do with it.
  • feureau, on 07/19/2008, -8/+2SNAP!
  • DeFex, on 07/19/2008, -9/+16FALSE ALERT: daily mail story
    funny name they made up for the "nurse" though
  • pauldy, on 07/19/2008, -6/+24Buried inaccurate she went in for an abortion and received the wrong stage pill. She was already having the abortion didn't oops get one by accident.
    • justinx0r, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6"Miss Downer failed to carry out the identity checks and gave the drug to a patient who was only due to have an initial visit. That would have involved a consultation with a doctor, blood tests and a scan."

      Oh really?
      • pauldy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1She went in for an abortion was handed a pill for an abortion and she took it. With her commitment to the act and had she taken the first stage I don't think it would have made such a sensational headline. It's not like people just shop abortion doctors. Once you have arrived there you have made a decision before you even walk in the door just because of the stigmas involved.
    • Natitude, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3They said the first girl was only in for a consultation, while I get that she was in an abortion clinic to find out about abortions, she may have decided not to do it... As a woman, I can definitely say that having someone give you an abortion before you actually said yes would be a bit traumatic. It crosses the line of a woman's right. She's suppose to have the option to agree to it and know what pills she was taken.
      • pauldy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1She went to an abortion office to have an abortion and the fact she took the pill without question shows she was already committed to the act, including commenting on how expedient the process was. Its not like she went into the doctors office for a checkup and was unknowingly handed a pill to abort her baby like the title implies.
  • koft, on 07/19/2008, -10/+2she can not has baby
  • btschul, on 07/19/2008, -16/+8Who cares. It's just a fetus, right. It's not like it was alive or anything. It was just a cluster of cells.
    /sarcasm.
    • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5Presumptuous much? The reason why we are called "pro-choice" is because we support a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. This was an irresponsible action on the nurse's part, largely because the clinic's policy of anonymity was just an accident waiting to happen. The woman might or might not have decided to keep the baby if she had gone through with the basic consultation. I do, however, wonder why she took the pills she was given, despite the fact that she was only there for a consultation.
      • btschul, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2It was sarcasm. I was making fun of those douchebags who support abortion. According to them, it wasn't a baby. It was just a cluster of cells. There is a good chance that it would have been a miscarriage anyway. It's not like it was a human being or anything. Who cares? Whatever.
      • ozydingo, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4Kayala said "the reason why *we* [emphasis mine] are called 'pro-choice'," so it's not hard to see that you just called her a douchebag. And just because a woman has the right to choose does not mean that the choice or the subject thereof is meaningless. I doubt you'll find any pro-choicer who thinks there is nothing wrong with the situation reported here, so please refrain from using that strawman.
  • rectagon, on 07/19/2008, -18/+10So.... they tried to kill a baby and succeeded.
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1+10 diggs / -13 diggs. Do not think there isn't anyone on your side.
  • knumbknuts, on 07/19/2008, -14/+4So, for one woman, it was a choice and a part of her body and a mistake.

    For another, it was her son or daughter.

    How upset was the woman whose child lived?
    • Tsuroerusu, on 07/19/2008, -3/+8Read the flipping story, both women were at the abortion clinic for an aborton! One were to have a surgical abortion, and another were to have a chemical abortion, the two got mixed.

      There's the facts, you can go back to church now.
      • mardraum, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2"Miss Downer failed to carry out the identity checks and gave the drug to a patient who was only due to have an initial visit. That would have involved a consultation with a doctor, blood tests and a scan."

        tell me more.
      • knumbknuts, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2Ok,

        2 whores killed their babies. Medicine slightly mixed up. Film @ 11.

        You win.
  • AceyS, on 07/19/2008, -7/+4What a downer.
  • ambion, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9Accidents happen. It sucks, but people are prone to human error.
  • iwasnevy, on 07/19/2008, -3/+68Maybe if the author knew how to write with any continuity, the article would actually make sense...
    There are 32 distinct paragraphs in this article, and each one is a single fragmented sentence.

    I gotta recap to see if I got this straight:

    Patient A went for a consultation.
    Clinic discovers they switched patients.
    Patient A was called back.
    Patient A was in pain.
    Patient B should have gotten the pill.
    Patient A went to abortion clinic.
    Patient B had the same name.
    Patient A took the pill and left.
    Patient A went for a consultation.
    Patient B had the same name and was in the clinic.
    Clinic discovers they switched patients.
    Patient A should not have gotten pill.
    Clinic discovers they switched patients.
    Patient A was called back.
    Patient A got an ultrasound.
    Patient A shouldn't have gotten pill.
    Patient A was in pain.
    Patient B came back.
    Clinic discovers they switched patients.
    Patient A was called back.
    Patient A was in pain.
    Clinic switched patients and didn't obtain consent.
    Clinic didn't obtain consent.
    Was there consent?
    Clinic didn't obtain consent.

    Buried until the author takes a writing class.
    • fitzal77, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7Thats the worstest writed article I readed ever!
      iwasnevy's recap was hilariously easier to read.
    • Kakaze, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5One of the most poorly written articles I've ever seen. Way confusing to read.
    • uzusan, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10If the author had taken a writing class, he wouldn't be working for the daily mail.
    • brettruffenach, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2...and they you will unbury it?

      You should just resubmit it in two semesters.
    • Lorddias, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Wow, does anyone know if Patient A was in pain or not?
  • sleepbox, on 07/19/2008, -16/+5some of you diggers are truly heartless *****. this "nurse" deserves prison for manslaughter.

    justifying the murder of the innocent and the freedom of the wicked...what a wonderful world
    • Tsuroerusu, on 07/19/2008, -2/+11Tell that to George W. Bush next time he opens his mouth about how important it was to "liberate" Iraq.
      • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -8/+1Did you really just do that? Really?
    • coldfire201, on 07/19/2008, -0/+8prison for mixing up patients or working in the abortion clinic?
    • Kakaze, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2It was an ACCIDENT you idiot.

      No one deserves prison for an accident.

      And the woman was going there for a consultation on an abortion anyway so, what, if she had gone through with it would you want her in jail too? Along with the nurse and doctor and every other patient of the clinic?

      You might as well just strap a bomb to your body and go down there and take care of it yourself.
      • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I really am sorry, because I 100% agree with you and I dugg you up - but people do end up in prison over accidents, like vehicular manslaughter.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1You call others "heartless" while you want to take a woman and put her in a cage for years because she made a clerical error? I don't mean to down play the implications of her mistake, the stakes were high but her actions were not deliberate. This is not the crime of a bad person. I see no wickedness in her actions. There is little threat of her repeating this mistake as I'm sure she will be justly discharged from her position and never intended any harm in the first place.
      You nobly suffer for the dead unborn but your heart is blind to the suffering of the living.
      Your cutthroat brand of justice is what I consider wicked.
  • vaeldas, on 07/19/2008, -11/+1As sad as this is...I hope she is set of LIFE with money, and also...imagine if you were the lady who actually wanted the abortion and didn't get it. I don't know how I would live with myself at that point.
  • digglet08, on 07/19/2008, -11/+1This is actually the saddest thing I've heard today. Thats really, really, REALLY horrible.


    Unfortunately, I'm basing this on the headline, which, being from digg, I can only assume to be grossly inaccurate. But if its true... see above
  • BoOtto, on 07/19/2008, -15/+2Yet another example of why this insane procedure needs to be abolished.
    • ostracize, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11Abortions will still happen regardless of whether or not it's abolished. At least it can be regulated and done without endangering the mother's life when it's legal.
    • 222good, on 07/19/2008, -1/+11yeah man, and while we're at it we'll get rid of all medical treatment, that way there will never be a medical mistake again
  • MasterGrief, on 07/19/2008, -6/+7More extremely unfortunate non-news from DailyMail. DailyMaul, more like it.
  • lopla, on 07/19/2008, -5/+6I really don't get people. Pills are easily identifiable. I ALWAYS assume my doc or pharmacist has given me the wrong medication, hell they are only human and people make mistakes. Some quick googling can confirm you have what you are supposed to have..
    • GodelEscherBach, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Pills are easily identifiable if you see them every day, but how many times in life does a woman see an abortion pill? Also, when you are at the hospital, how are you going to use Google? Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that abortion pills are administered at the hospital, not at home where you might have other computing resources.

      The nurse got the right pill. . . but the wrong person (that's one way to look at it). This is why I support a system where patients are not identified by name, but by a bar-code that must be scanned and matched to a bar-code attached to a work-order.
    • joeanon, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1That type of behavior means you have psychological problems. Such as hypochondria, obsessive compulsive, paranoid delusions.

      Are you a gun nut also who fears the 'BIG WAR' is coming for you ?

      Do you have a basement full of canned food and ammunition ?
  • Seann7656, on 07/19/2008, -6/+4This story could of been so much better... Buried
  • paloooz, on 07/19/2008, -11/+2Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children???
  • ryanphilips, on 07/19/2008, -11/+1It really was a catastrophe for a woman to loose her child, still there are some incidents on which we have very little control, even the BIBLE prose says man only walks on the road chooses for him by the ALMIGHTY, these small things which are seemed as dots in present, always form a line in the future. I am not justifying a mother's loss just saying that some things we have to leave at his mercy.

    --------------------------
    ryanphilips
    • kayala, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4I thought churches were in favor of education. Guess not >.
    • ZoolTool, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Loose her child? What, onto the world? No, that's precisely what didn't happen.
    • uberduger, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I'm really glad you signed that comment with your username. Seeing the name again reminded me to block you. Cheers, dude!
    • Chassit, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, your poor command of the English language has had the result of making your post nonsensical.
  • eh123, on 07/19/2008, -9/+2That woman needs to cheer up. It's not like they murdered her baby or anything, right guys? :D Just a minor slip up down at the universal health care factory.


  • PartyLess, on 07/19/2008, -8/+3Emergency Contraception is not abortion. This author has no credibility for using improper and slanted language.
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1errr... Wrong. "Plan B," as it's known in the states, may prevent sperm from ever fertilizing the egg if it's taken very early and the egg is unusually deep in the fallopian tube. Otherwise, it induces an abortion.
  • GodelEscherBach, on 07/19/2008, -3/+11The headline is wrong and inaccurately implies that a pregnancy was unintentionally terminated. Both patient A and patient B were there for abortions. No pregnancy was terminated that would not have ended up terminated anyways. Why do people comment on articles they do not read?

    I realize this happened in the UK, but if you are in the medical profession and work in an overcrowded large county hospital in the US that serves the underprivileged, you can probably list off hundreds of "mistakes" far far worse than this that never gets public attention where no one gets fired. People just don't realize that the incidents that make the news are not just anomalies but actually happen quite frequently and are considered "no big deal" by most people in the profession. Obviously, this needs to change.
    • Suricou, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Abortion is a special case, because due to political factors any mistake - no matter how tiny - will be pounced on as an excuse to argue all abortions are dangerous and all abortion-performing doctors incompetant.

      Take, as an example, the breast-cancer scare. There was a single study which found that abortion appeared to have a causal link to breast cancer. Further, larger studies found no link though - and the apparent link in the first was traced to an error in interpretation. Abortion doesn't cause cancer, but pregnancy does have a small preventative effect, and because the study compared abortion to pregnency this was mistaken for a causal link with abortion. Overall the link has now been discredited completly - and yet I still see on a regular basis pro-life organisations campaigning with 'Abortion causes breast cancer!' as one of their approaches.

      For another, the drug Mifepristone has an extremally good safety record. Since the drug was approved in the US, eight women have died after taking it for the purpose of abortion. Out of 560,000 patients. Of these eight, five of them were deaths due to clinical error in the use of a completly different follow-up drug. Discounting those, that means Mifepristone has a lower fatality rate than Asperin. Dispite this, purely because of it's role in abortions, there have been numerous attempts to have it's FDA approval withdrawn including one congressional investigation. A drug for any other purpose would not face such scrutiny, but because it's an abortion-inducing drug every single death that is even *coincidential* with taking Mifepristone is held up as 'proof' the drug is unsafe.

      In the lowest trick of all, Holly's Law exploited the memory (and cuteness) of a single victim for sympathy value to manipulate people - even though Holly was one of those killed due to clinical error.
      • exomni, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1"Take, as an example, the breast-cancer scare. There was a single study which found that abortion appeared to have a causal link to breast cancer. Further, larger studies found no link though - and the apparent link in the first was traced to an error in interpretation. Abortion doesn't cause cancer, but pregnancy does have a small preventative effect, and because the study compared abortion to pregnency this was mistaken for a causal link with abortion."

        Wait... isn't pregnancy a prerequisite for abortion?
      • Suricou, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1In reply to the above - and I really find it annoying that Digg won't let me reply directly:

        Pregnency, to term, has a slight preventative effect on breast cancer. I don't know how, it just does. But if the pregnency isn't to term, no benefit. The study compared women undergoing abortion with women who carried to term. Upon noticing that the former group had a slightly (but significently, in the statistical sense) incidence of breast cancer, the researchers concluded that the abortions were causing the cancer. Their conclusion was wrong though. It was not abortion causing cancer, but completed pregnency preventing it. They didn't use any non-pregnent control group, so there was no reference both groups could be compared to. Later studies using a slightly different methodology could find no connection between abortion and cancer at all, for various methods of abortion.

        It was never a very strong correlation though, and just goes to demonstrate how easily people can read what looks like a clear conclusion from the data without seeing the ambiguity.
    • otherguyhouston, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0Are you kidding... if that happened in the US there would be a huge lawsuit. Patient A would have claimed she was not sure what was going on and would not have aborted the baby. She would have sued the clinic for all it was worth and whatever insurance they had available. I actually wish this happened here as it would be one less clinic. As it happens patients in the UK probably do not have the right to sue doctors for much of anything. I know Planned Parenthood aka "Planned Killinghood" claims to help women who want to be pregnant so for those of you who think that going into a place that does abortions means you are going to get one think again. This nurse made a mistake that I a hope haunts her for the rest of her life.
      • GodelEscherBach, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0No, I am not kidding. However, I am not surprised by your statement because what you said is probably what most American who are not in the medical profession or work in well-planned cities believe.

        Have you ever been to a county hospital or any medical facility that is funded by taxpayer dollars (not health insurance)? The mere fact that you are posting to Digg tells me that you are educated or well-off enough to never have to see the inside of a county hospital.

        It is truly a battlefield inside one of these places. Nothing works properly. . . oxygen machines are broken . . . no surgeons on staff when they are needed. . . techs/doctors falling asleep at critical moments. . . and we're not talking about a 3rd world country, we're talking about America. I would say that 25% of the patients at these places are the victim of some type of negligence but are not educated enough to realize they have recourse.

        Most educated Americans believe that "Patient A" would sue. Unfortunately, this is not true. There would be no lawsuit, no news, and no consequences to the people responsible. The nurse/doctor responsible for such action would be given a "briefing" by the hospital's legal counsel with no further consequences.

        It's the people who SHOULD sue who never do.

        Don't ask me why. . . that's just what I've seen and why I've chosen an alternate career.
  • Digital.Totem, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2yeah this sucks and all they ***** up, but she was at an abortion clinic it was going to happen sooner or later and now she gets to sue for emotional damages.
    • Suricou, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Why is an abortion clinic any more likely to make a mistake than any other clinic?
      • exomni, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1He means the abortion was going to happen sooner or later, not a mistake.

        The woman was given the wrong chemical abortion tablet, she was given the second round of chemical abortion tablets instead of the first. She responded poorly (obviously), and thus needed an immediate surgical abortion.

        This is a non-story. So many worse mistakes have been made in hospitals and clinics everywhere.
  • Rhawk187, on 07/19/2008, -4/+12Yeah, the headline totally made it sound worse than it actually was. My jaw dropped when I saw the headline, but after I read it, it doesn't seem like as big a deal.
  • dsmith530, on 07/19/2008, -7/+7Worse mistakes have been made.
    But at least the mother was physically unharmed even if emotionally scarred. It's a tragic story and the nurse should be fired.
    • brokencrystal, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Yes, some mother only lost her child, no big deal...

      Mine was sarcasm... yours makes me sick because of your very limited value on human life. It says something about our society. I believe in human rights, but murder is not a human right. Woman are not an exception. Woman are born with a special ability to bring human life into this world, with the help of a man of course, but the woman has a responsibility since she is carrying another human life. She must not murder for convenience. We are truly very sick, selfish, lazy people with no morals to murder for convenience!
      • bduddy, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I agree with your sentiments, both of you, but READ THE ARTICLE! Both women went in for abortions, one just got the wrong kind!
  • roycifer, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2oh snap!
  • zippperip, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6Who made up this asinine story?
  • pljwebb, on 07/19/2008, -3/+8It's the Daily Mail, I wonder what kind of urban myth they'll dredge up for their next scare story?
  • osko2052, on 07/19/2008, -10/+3Women getting abortions are always the wrong woman. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
  • jwiesenborn, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1is this for real? these hospital mixup articles usually end up to be fake.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.