Part-Time Pundit: Eugenics at Carle Foundation Hospital

« Abortion Advocates Fight Against Choice | Main | A Victory for Free Association at SIU »

August 26, 2005

Eugenics at Carle Foundation Hospital

(Note: Thanks to Pro-Life Blogs for hosting the PDF)

Eugenics is the sterilizing of the "unfit" so that only the fit can breed. This was all the rage in the 30s until Hitler took it to its logical extension and it fell out of style. Many states allowed courts to order sterilization of criminals or others that those in power deemed not fit to procreate. The laws were eventually overturned.

That brings me to this story. On March 10th, 2005 a woman was admitted to Carle Foundation hospital. She was several months pregnant and was admitted for complications to her pregnancy and for apparent drug abuse. At admission, the staff identified "Communication Barriers" on a form even though the patient speaks fluent English (Page 1 in the linked PDF document below). Page 2 is an authorization form for sterilization "signed" on March 12th. Page 3 and 4 are the nursing charts that show on 3/11 the "pt (patient) would not wake up", on 3/12 that the nurses could not do a consultation with her because the drugs (which included the ones given by the hospital at this point) have not worn off, and that on 3/13 says the "pt (patient) finally 'waking up'". The patient was admitted on the 11th but unable to communicate until the 13th, yet signed a form authorizing sterilization on the 12th. How precisely can a patient unable to communicate and unable to "wake up" sign a consent form to have her tubes tied? The law in Illinois for medical treatment is "informed consent" and based on the nurse's own statements, this patient was in no position to consent to anything and certainly not do so in an informed matter.

Here are the excerpts of the medical records which have had identifying information redacted except the patient number so Carle can verify these records should they so choose.

After receiving this information I tried to see if this has happened to other women. I received 2 reports that women were pressured into signing these forms and refused but nothing quite on the level of this. This could be one nurse who took matters into her own hands or an institutional policy, I just don't know that right now and I have been unable to successfully dig deeper. I'm of the opinion that if this has happened once in such a flagrant manner, what's to say it hasn't happened before or won't happen again. Only some public prying will be able to determine it which is the intention of this post.

One may argue that sterilization of women with drug problems is a good thing, to them I say why not wait until she is awake and convince her? Sure, I'm against sterilization but it is legal in this country. Why not deal with the drug problem instead of sterilizing the woman and dropping her back into her bad situation? What happens when the woman breaks free of her drug problem and later wants to have children when she's clean? What happened here was a hospital staffer trying to slip through this sterilization because they wanted to impose it on her. Luckily, this time they got caught and the authorization was revoked. The courts and legislatures have decided that they have no place controlling who should breed; certainly nurses in hospitals shouldn't be making those decisions either.

CLARIFICATION:

Apparently I was less than clear... once she "came to" she told asked the nurses about this thing she signed, they told her, and she eventually (with difficulty) got the permission revoked. They just got the form signed so when she delivered, they would be able to "take care of it" with no questions asked.

Posted by John Bambenek at August 26, 2005 7:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://jcb.pentex-net.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/732

Comments

Ok I have a question? Was she actually sterilized? The consent form said it was revoked...and she was pregnant...What happened to the baby..Sorry But I had a hard time reading the pdf..The handwriting was atrocious..LOL.
I started to cross link this but wanted these questions answered first.

Posted by: kc at August 26, 2005 8:23 PM

You sound like this was a nurse initiated consent.
Be careful who you accuse. As a former professional nurse I can tell you nurses are not in a position to initiate such consents. They may have a consent form signed if a doctor orders it or if it is standard policy for all admissions. Someone with more authority would initiate this. Perhaps the nursing records depicting her level of consciousness were that nurses were simply documenting that this patient was not lucid enough to make a consent valid. Nurses are generally patient advocates.

RESPONSE:

Only reason I mention a nurse is that a nurse signed off on it. Could have been doctor initiated... just don't know.

Posted by: Pat in NC at August 27, 2005 10:57 AM

This is shocking. I was once involved with this Carle facility in IL on a professional level and they had an excellent reputation at that time.

I myself was forced by my own (former) gynecologist many years ago to agree to let him perform a total hyterectomy if he choose to while performing surgery. Unless I gave full permission for this, he would not agree to perform the surgery I needed for painful endometriosis (Stage III). He informed me of this as I was being prepped for surgery. I basically thought I was going to have a simple laser laparoscopy, but instead, I awakened to hear him flippantly tell me, "I had to take out an ovary and a tube". Within a time span of less than five minutes he was on his way to the golf course. Needless to say, I broke down in tears and told the nurse what I thought of his bedside manner and she took the time to listen and to console me. I also met with the female hospital chaplain as well as other hospital personnel immediately afterwards.

What Pat said is true -- most nurses are patient advocates ( Michael Schiavo excluded.)

RESPONSE:

I am less than impressed with how doctors tend to treat patients... you shouldn't NEED patient advocates, patients are the reason these facilities exist to begin with. My first impression with this is that the doctor sent in the nurse but I have no real evidence for that, just a hunch. Only thing I have right now is a nurse's signature.

Posted by: Jean at August 27, 2005 1:38 PM

Your definition of Eugenics is incorrect though sterilization of the unfit is certainly part of it. The purpose of Eugenics is to breed a superior human being by decreasing the births of the “unfit” and increasing the births of the "fit". I suspicion that Eugenics went underground becoming part of the Birth Control League now known as Planned Parenthood. If you read the “War on Choice” by Gloria Feldt the then president of Planned Parenthood your will find she considers low income blacks as unfit. Similarilly Sally Blackmun the daughter of Justice Harry A. Blackmun who wrote the introduction to the same book, advances the hypothesis that the poor and disadvantaged should have been aborted because of their quality of life. I also wonder if Roe v. Wade was decided because of possible Eugenics leanings of the deciding Justices as they cited from Buck v. Bell and forced sterilization was still going on in the United States at that time. Considering that minorities suffer substantially more from abortion than whites this could definitely be the case.

Posted by: kerwin at September 1, 2005 8:32 AM