OB-GYN brands patient's name on her uterus

Branding someone's internal organs shows that YOU CARE.

Quote :

After performing a hysterectomy last year, a California gynecologist used a cauterizing tool to brand his patient’s name on her removed uterus, an unorthodox move that the doctor calls a “friendly gesture,” but which the woman terms “despicable conduct” in a medical negligence lawsuit.

In a Superior Court lawsuit filed earlier this month, Ingrid Paulicivic, a 47-year-old hairdresser, charges that Dr. Red Alinsod used an “electrocautery device to carve and burn” the word “Ingrid” on her uterus, which was removed during a June 2009 operation at his Orange County office.

Paulicivic alleges that the branding was done for “no medically necessary purpose or reason” and that she somehow suffered burns on her legs while the uterus was being marked, according to her complaint. In an interview, Paulicivic’s lawyer, Devan Mullins, called the branding “inexcusably bizarre behavior,” adding that the 50-year-old Alinsod was “fooling around and having fun.”

Man, carving words into someone's organ that you just removed, dude, that's totally like spelling your own name in the snow when you take a piss!

AWESOME, DUDE!

Quote :

Alinsod contended that Paulicivic’s hysterectomy--which was done under general anesthesia--was “uneventful” and that the matter of the uterus branding was a “red herring” raised by her legal counsel. He claimed that he “felt comfortable putting her name on the uterus” since Paulicivic, pictured above, was a “good friend.”

Though Alinsod referred to the branding as a “gesture of friendship,” Mullins said that his client “had never met him prior to the first consult,” adding that she was actually an acquaintance of a receptionist who works in the doctor’s Laguna Beach office.

I'LL BE YOUR BFF AFTER I BRAND YOUR NAME ON YOUR UTERUS

Quote :

Mullins said that Paulicivic and her husband Joe, a photographer, learned of the branding during a follow-up visit with Alinsod, during which she complained about the burns suffered during the operation. After seeing Alinsod examining photos taken during the operation, the couple asked for copies of the images. Alinsod told TSG that he complied with the request since he had “nothing to hide.”

Alinsod, pictured at left, provided the couple with about 50 digital images, Mullins said, including photos showing the doctor writing on the uterus, as well as pictures of him holding the organ after “Ingrid” was branded on it. Mullins, who declined to provide TSG with any of the post-surgery photos, estimated that each of the letters in “Ingrid” was about one inch high and the name itself was about five inches wide.

HAI GUIZ DIS IZ UR UTERUS AND I TTLY WROTE UR NAEM ON IT LOL

In other words, . Thanks for making me feel even more contempt for (and subsequent reluctance to work in) the medical establishment than I do now, douche.

....She's not going to use that uterus again, is she? It was removed from her body because of either 1) choice or 2) medical necessity. Ergo, it was kind of useless yeah? What was she going to do with it, frame it for posterity's sake?

I can understand the lawsuit for burning parts of her body (and fear of disability resulting from those burns), which is actually the majority of the complaint, but if she were just suing because her OB/GYN branded a body part she wasn't in possession of any longer? No.

Hell, the main point of the lawsuit is to remedy the injuries sustained. The uterus branding is just the cherry on top.

Actually, I've heard of a case like this at least one other time...which makes me wonder why the uterus seems to be such a tempting surface for writing on.

I wish the doctors here were that cool. Sometimes the dentists don't even let you keep your removed teeth. I'm not saying the OBGYN was in the right, not even close, but if a surgeon offered to brand my name on my uterus so I could keep it in a jar, that would be awesome. It would cheer me up while my organs shifted down to fill the empty space, causing internal complications.

The branding of the uterus isn't the godawful part, it's that not only did he do it without permission, but that he envisioned it as a gesture of friendship. You can't tell me that carving someone's name on an organ isn't the creepiest gesture of friendship ever, especially coming from a casual acquaintance.

Well, if it isn't the creepiest it sure as shootin' ranks among the top five. "Sick" is too mild a word to describe what Dr. Alinsod did.

What I don't get, if the thing was removed anyway, how in the world did she receive injuries while he was messing with it? Did he lay it down on her stomach like a newborn baby? FFS, just take it over to your desk already, it's not attached anymore.

Malganis wrote:

Thanks for making me feel even more contempt for (and subsequent reluctance to work in) the medical establishment than I do now, douche.

You'll get over it.

Well, at least he didn't scribble anything on it until it was taken out?

I am a bit puzzled as to how this gets to sounding like a good idea in someone's head, though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

villainy wrote:

I wish the doctors here were that cool. Sometimes the dentists don't even let you keep your removed teeth. I'm not saying the OBGYN was in the right, not even close, but if a surgeon offered to brand my name on my uterus so I could keep it in a jar, that would be awesome. It would cheer me up while my organs shifted down to fill the empty space, causing internal complications.

A few wisdom teeth in a jar is fine; that's not that weird. A uterus in a jar with your name on it as a gesture of friendship? That's crossing the line into disturbing, creepy, and markedly messed up, and this is coming from someone who asked for surgical photos to show off her ankle reconstruction.

I'm not saying the man isn't weird, but if the woman's so determined on getting money for this, why won't her lawyer show the press?

Oh, that's right - the pictures aren't actually worth all this spasming over.

Bottom line is, he shouldn't have done that without her permission. Just because a handful of you find it amusing, it don't mean she does.

In my case, I wouldn't sue, it's too much, but I'd be fucking pissed.

Just a few hours ago, that piece of now useless meat was part of her. She might be feeling mutilated, despite it being for her own good, she might be feeling like fucking shit (what with the hysterectomy and all) and he figures it'd be nice to carve her name on the piece of her she was forced (all uteri can give you is menstruation, kids and cancer) to cut-off?

Fuck you, man. I don't care if it's not part of me now, but it used to be, show a little respect.

Goat wrote:

Bottom line is, he shouldn't have done that without her permission. Just because a handful of you find it amusing, it don't mean she does.

In my case, I wouldn't sue, it's too much, but I'd be fucking pissed.

Just a few hours ago, that piece of now useless meat was part of her. She might be feeling mutilated, despite it being for her own good, she might be feeling like fucking shit (what with the hysterectomy and all) and he figures it'd be nice to carve her name on the piece of her she was forced (all uteri can give you is menstruation, kids and cancer) to cut-off?

Fuck you, man. I don't care if it's not part of me now, but it used to be, show a little respect.

This.

The comment on there about the unnecessary hysterectomies/female castrations gives me the chills.

I have stories from family members of doctors/nurses being shitheads to them just because the doctor/nurse could be. I've read some real horror stories of people going in for surgeries, elective or needed, and the doctor deciding to do the person a "favor" they never asked for and disregarding the patient's explicit instructions as to the extent of the surgical procedure, or doing a second surgical procedure that the patient never asked for and never wanted.

I have no idea where I read it, it was a comment somewhere on an article I read a while back, but in this comment, the woman posting told about how when she gave birth, her OB-GYN actually cut off part of her labia and clitoral hood without her permission to 'neaten her up' or some fucking bullshit like that. She said that she was angry about it at the time but now she didn't know how to feel. I mean, when someone does you a FAVOR like that, I guess you should feel grateful or something. You know, that they looked at your body and decided it was ugly for you and then sliced off part of it without your consent.

You'd better believe that if some shitheel did that to me, I'd make them wish they'd never even thought of entering medical school.

True, he definitely could use some diciplining for the action. After all, if you don't, there's the unpleasant risk of him thinking it might be a real laugh to do it again... and again... and in more severe ways.

It is, after all, her body. I don't know if it's "I'm suing you for $10,000,000" quality but it's still her body.

I think if nothing else, this thread shows why it's a bad idea: You're either going to offend the patient, or you're playing with medical waste.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I'm not saying the man isn't weird, but if the woman's so determined on getting money for this, why won't her lawyer show the press?

Because it's potential evidence in a civil trial, and if he showed it to the press it would poison the jury pool.

Penguin wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Thanks for making me feel even more contempt for (and subsequent reluctance to work in) the medical establishment than I do now, douche.

You'll get over it.

No she won't.

She's got her panties in such a knot over every perceived wrong even the World Champion Christmas Light Untangler couldn't untie it.

One can only hope her epic case of perpetual butthurt turns out to be fatal.

It's not like she lost a tooth in the process of winning a Stanely Cup. That would be something you want to keep. By the point he was goofing with it, it was a useless hunk of meat, no more important than a piece of beef at Wal-Mart. I can't figure out how he could have lacked the common sense to the point he was able to burn her while doing it, but fiddling with the uterus itself was not a problem in the slightest.

You fools are showing more concern for a now useless organ than you do for a fetus.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I'm not saying the man isn't weird, but if the woman's so determined on getting money for this, why won't her lawyer show the press?

Because it's potential evidence in a civil trial, and if he showed it to the press it would poison the jury pool.

Here's a question I think only Spotts would be interested in, but I'll throw it out there just in case:

There was a case out there (Moore v. Regents of the University of California) that, boiled way down, asserted that once the tissue's removed from your body during a procedure, you have no claim on it--essentially, you forfeit rights or ownership of it. I know Moore was about profiting off of cell lines, but would precedent like this put a block on this woman's case: if it was removed from her, she can't really complain with what's done with it at that point.

I'm not up on legal stuff, which is why I defer to Spotts on this one, but it struck me as a possible twist in the whole deal.

(I'm not saying the doctor's in the right or that this isn't wrong in many, many ways; he needs disciplinary action and this was weird and wrong as shit. But this case popped into my head tonight for some reason.)

That's just weird, and I agree that the gesture is definitely creepy. Kind of reminds me of fifth grade where this kid carved a girl's name into his arm.

Gotta make sure this one doesn't wander away from the herd I guess.

Moooooooooooo.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

You fools are showing more concern for a now useless organ than you do for a fetus.

You're missing the point. It's not about the organ, it is about the woman. Think, for just a second, what she might've felt at that momment.

It was useless, yes, but it was part of her. Maybe in her head (and I can see how this is posible), it was still a part of her.

lemmingwriter wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I'm not saying the man isn't weird, but if the woman's so determined on getting money for this, why won't her lawyer show the press?

Because it's potential evidence in a civil trial, and if he showed it to the press it would poison the jury pool.

Here's a question I think only Spotts would be interested in, but I'll throw it out there just in case:

There was a case out there (Moore v. Regents of the University of California) that, boiled way down, asserted that once the tissue's removed from your body during a procedure, you have no claim on it--essentially, you forfeit rights or ownership of it. I know Moore was about profiting off of cell lines, but would precedent like this put a block on this woman's case: if it was removed from her, she can't really complain with what's done with it at that point.

I'm not up on legal stuff, which is why I defer to Spotts on this one, but it struck me as a possible twist in the whole deal.

(I'm not saying the doctor's in the right or that this isn't wrong in many, many ways; he needs disciplinary action and this was weird and wrong as shit. But this case popped into my head tonight for some reason.)

Maybe. It depends on how it was treated by the jurisdiction and how well the fact patterns match up. Moore has quite a bit of citing references, over 500 if you include all secondary resources, but there are only 10 cautionary primary-persuasive/mandatory analyses.

Wild MIKEY used ABORTION THREADJACK! ...But it failed.

As far as the article goes...that is creepy as fuck. If they'd actually known each other and she'd consented to it, okay, that's a little weird, but it wouldn't have been a bad thing on its own. But the lack of consent, the fact that they could barely even be called acquaintances, and the injury send this guy straight to Creepsville - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

lemmingwriter wrote:

There was a case out there (Moore v. Regents of the University of California) that, boiled way down, asserted that once the tissue's removed from your body during a procedure, you have no claim on it--essentially, you forfeit rights or ownership of it. I know Moore was about profiting off of cell lines, but would precedent like this put a block on this woman's case: if it was removed from her, she can't really complain with what's done with it at that point.

I'm not up on legal stuff, which is why I defer to Spotts on this one, but it struck me as a possible twist in the whole deal.

(I'm not saying the doctor's in the right or that this isn't wrong in many, many ways; he needs disciplinary action and this was weird and wrong as shit. But this case popped into my head tonight for some reason.)

I remember reading Moore back in Law School.

While it is true that Moore would be controlling precedent (since it was a California case and this is also a California case), it can be fairly quickly distinguished. The central issue in Moore boiled down to individual property rights, while this case looks more like a tort case.

But despite this, the premise is the same: how much right do you have with regards to something that would be destroyed anyway? I mean, if the doctor had done this while the organ was still inside her body and remained there when he was done there would be no question that she has suffered a tort.

Here, however, we have an organ that has been removed and the tortuous conduct did not occur until after its removal. It's going to be disposed of regardless, so that's going to make it difficult to show an actual harm to the plaintiff.

Spotts1701 wrote:

lemmingwriter wrote:

There was a case out there (Moore v. Regents of the University of California) that, boiled way down, asserted that once the tissue's removed from your body during a procedure, you have no claim on it--essentially, you forfeit rights or ownership of it. I know Moore was about profiting off of cell lines, but would precedent like this put a block on this woman's case: if it was removed from her, she can't really complain with what's done with it at that point.

I'm not up on legal stuff, which is why I defer to Spotts on this one, but it struck me as a possible twist in the whole deal.

(I'm not saying the doctor's in the right or that this isn't wrong in many, many ways; he needs disciplinary action and this was weird and wrong as shit. But this case popped into my head tonight for some reason.)

I remember reading Moore back in Law School.

While it is true that Moore would be controlling precedent (since it was a California case and this is also a California case), it can be fairly quickly distinguished. The central issue in Moore boiled down to individual property rights, while this case looks more like a tort case.

But despite this, the premise is the same: how much right do you have with regards to something that would be destroyed anyway? I mean, if the doctor had done this while the organ was still inside her body and remained there when he was done there would be no question that she has suffered a tort.

Here, however, we have an organ that has been removed and the tortuous conduct did not occur until after its removal. It's going to be disposed of regardless, so that's going to make it difficult to show an actual harm to the plaintiff.

Thank you.

The burns she says she suffered on her leg or whatever are one thing (though that sounds like an awful lot of bellyaching over a very minor annoyance). But is she's so fucking mental that she has an emotional attachment to a useless mass of tissue that, considering it had to be removed, probably tried to kill her, that's entirely her problem.

Bullshit like this is why malpractice insurance is so stupidly expensive.