Woman Says Anti-Abortion Nurse Removed IUD Without Permission
This is a strange case. I’ve never used an IUD but I have friends who have and I remember them talking about having them removed….it didn’t sound like they came out easily with a “gentle” tug. If this nurse has a reputation for them coming out when she gives them a gentle tug maybe she needs some further training. Or then again, maybe she isn’t telling the truth. Regardless, it really isn’t a laughing matter for the women who this has happened to and who then have to go through the insertion procedure again. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out.
Woman Says Anti-Abortion Nurse Removed IUD Without Permission, Then Lectured Her
ALBUQUERQUE (CN) – A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, the patient claims in a federal action, then told her that “having the IUD come out was a good thing,” because “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them.”
The patient sued Presbyterian Medical Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona in Federal Court. The plaintiff says she went to Rio Rancho to have the strings on her IUD shortened.
The complaint states: “As soon as Defendant Olona began speaking to (the plaintiff), she questioned her about her choice of contraception. “As Defendant Olona began the procedure, (the plaintiff) felt Olona pull on the strings of the IUD. (The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.
“As that happened, Defendant Olona stated, ‘Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came.’ She then explained, ‘I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly.’”Olona then stated, ‘having the IUD come out was a good thing.’ She asked (the plaintiff) if she wanted to hear her ‘take’ on the situation. Without receiving a response, Defendant Olona stated, ‘I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.’
“Defendant Olona stated, ‘Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.’
November 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Sage, when I became pregnant with my son, the doctor had told me that my uterus was so far back that, “there is no way on earth that you’re going to get pregnant!” We stopped all contraceptive protection because the doctor had told me there was no way I could get pregnant … and guess what ????? We have a son, a grandson, and a granddaughter. Imagine if that had happened to us in today’s savvy world … would we then have thought of suing my doctor?
November 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The point is that patient took measures to not get pregnant and the Nurse sabotaged those efforts because of her belief system. The fact that her “gentle” tugs result in multiple accidental removals, her own words, speaks even more.
My daughter has an IUD because she has epilepsy. The meds she takes cause birth defects plus she chooses not to have children because of her health issues. She needs to care for herself
morninmist Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@Wizcon,
She is a physician assistant, not a nurse. There is a vast difference. Just saying.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I lived in NM last year and read about this. Rio Rancho clinic was fined.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
btw. she is still licenced as a PA in New Mexico:
http://164.64.87.25/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=369268&
And licensee to dispense controlled substances:
http://164.64.87.25/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=446839&
November 29th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
sorry, my memory is faulty so I found this:
http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/Patient-Drops-Claim-over-Nurse-s-Anti-Abortion-Views.html
Patient Settles Claim Over Nurse’s Anti-Abortion Views Print
A New Mexico woman has settled her lawsuit against a physician’s assistant at a health clinic who allegedly expressed anti-abortion views while removing her IUD without her permission, On Point has learned.
Ashley Van Patten’s original complaint included an unusual claim for violation of the due process right to choice of contraception arising from a visit to the Rio Rancho Family Health Center in Rio Rancho, N.M., for an adjustment of her IUD. She also alleged civil battery, describing the actions of physician’s assistant Sylvia Olona as “malicious.”
After Olona took the IUD out, the suit said, she told Van Patten, “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion” and recommended that she use a “non-abortion” form of contraception such as a depo provera shot or the pill.
But what appeared to be a blatant intrusion of religious belief into medical treatment was scrubbed from an amended complaint filed last week, leaving Van Patten to allege only a run-of-the-mill malpractice claim for negligent removal of the IUD. Olona’s name is also omitted and the only defendant is the federal government, which funds the Rio Rancho clinic.
Van Patten attorney Ryan J. Villa of Albuquerque explains that he amended the complaint “pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The United States wanted Ms. Van Patten to file this complaint as part of the settlement agreement.” Settlement documents have yet to be filed with the court.
In an answer to an earlier version of the suit, the U.S. generally denied the allegations, admitting only that “Ms. Olona examined Ms. Van Patten for an ‘IUD check.’” The removal of an IUD during an adjustment is a “known risk inherent in the treatment,” the defense also said.
A New Mexico law says a health care provider may “decline to comply with an individual instruction or health-care decision for reasons of conscience.” A Bush Administration “conscience rule” which allows medical personnel to refuse to perform procedures they find morally objectionable took effect Jan. 19, Bush’s last day in office………………