September 13, 2010
DOCUMENT: Bizarre

Doctor Branded Woman's Uterus After Surgery

OB/GYN lasered patient’s name in “friendly gesture”

Red Alinsod

View Document

Branded Uterus Complaint

Submit a Tip!

SEPTEMBER 13--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.”

While noting that he has never previously branded an organ or body part removed during surgery, Alinsod told TSG that he wrote Paulicivic’s name on the uterus because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” Asked whether this was a standard way of labeling body parts, Alinsod acknowledged that it was not. Usually, he said, a patient’s name is written on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor.

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.

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.

According to a biography on his web site, Alinsod has practiced as an OB/GYN specialist for about 20 years, a period that included time in the United States Air Force (where he headed gynecologic services units at military bases in Nevada and California). “He was affectionately called a ‘Combat Gynecologist’ by his colleagues,” his bio reports. Alinsod’s web site is stocked with hundreds of graphic photos and videos recording the wide range of medical procedures he handles, including vaginal rejuvenation, hymen repair, and laser resurfacing.

Paulicivic’s lawsuit, which includes her husband as a plaintiff, does not specify monetary damages. Along with accusing Alinsod of medical negligence, the complaint charges the doctor with battery and contends that Joe Paulicivic has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife.

In early-2003, a group of women sued a Kentucky doctor for branding them during surgery. As seen on one surgical video, Dr. James Guiler, a University of Kentucky medical school graduate, used a cauterizing device to place the initials “UK” on the uterus of a patient undergoing a hysterectomy. The branding--which was done during surgery while the organ was in place--was reportedly a way for Guiler to remain oriented during the procedure. The outcome of those lawsuits could not be determined. (7 pages)

Branded Uterus Complaint

TAGS

uterus branding

Comments (55)

Submitted by jackie on Sun, 2011-01-16 23:37.
Really Walter. So with your logic, what age is it OK to castrate men. Say what over 55, 60? They're too old to pull any chicks and they can't get a hard on any more. FYI one of the biggest growing groups of women having hysterectomies now are women in their 30s and 20s. So do your research. Better still why don't you kill yourself and along with all the other misogynists here and do us all a favor.
Submitted by Walter Shapilrock jr. (not verified) on Fri, 2010-12-31 22:24.
It's not the hysterectomies or "castrations" bothering the ones who complain. It's their age that's bothering them and the fact that they are withering flowers, no longer able to attract as many $bees$ to themselves as they did in the spring of their youth. The power of the male is in his sex drive (physical, spiritual, mental: google sexual energy transmutation sometime) and women do all they can to separate men from that power, to steal it really. Hysterectomies are a big sign that the game of stealing men's power is either completely over with or darn near close. My advice: Adopt a cat, grow a garden, and leave your gynecologist ALONE!!!! . dried up Hoes, they make me laugh: This has been brought to you by the United Knee Grow College Foundation
Submitted by formerly known ... on Tue, 2010-10-05 19:36.
Any doctor who performs a hysterectomy is a weirdo. Women are always denied the truth about hysterectomy. Women want to believe their physician has their best interests in mind. Sadly all that physician is thinking about is $$$.
Submitted by Tony 02 on Mon, 2010-12-06 05:13.
Is a surgical technique that involves moving skin containing hair follicles from one part of the body (the donor site) to bald or balding parts (the recipient site). It is primarily used to treat male pattern baldness, whereby grafts containing hair Hair Transplant india follicles that are genetically resistant to balding are transplanted to bald scalp.
Submitted by Tony day on Thu, 2010-12-02 02:55.
ilkjho
Submitted by Zoe on Thu, 2010-09-30 13:37.
This is another story of medicos disrespect for the body or organs of a women and her intentions. It reeks of barbarism, hatred and greed at the women's expense. There is no male counterpart to such behavior. One basis may be womb envy. Women everywhere be forewarned to get educated. Here is one educational link: http://www.hersfoundation.com/anatomy/index.html
Submitted by Zoe on Thu, 2010-09-30 13:37.
This is another story of medicos disrespect for the body or organs of a women and her intentions. It reeks of barbarism, hatred and greed at the women's expense. There is no male counterpart to such behavior. One basis may be womb envy. Women everywhere be forewarned to get educated. Here is one educational link: http://www.hersfoundation.com/anatomy/index.html
Submitted by HERSFoundation on Wed, 2010-09-29 17:19.
The lack of respect for women by male and female gynecologists reveals an attitude tolerant of violent acts toward women. The same behavior would be unacceptable toward men. It is standard operating practice for all tissue removed during surgery to be sent to the Pathology Department for microscopic examination by a pathologist. In branding Ingrid Paulicivic’s uterus Alinsod destroyed tissue, preventing a complete, accurate pathologic diagnosis. An act such as this may reveal that Alinsod committed a criminal act and medical malpractice . It calls into question whether the uterus was diseased and if it was, burning a brand in it may have destroyed evidence of the extent of the disease, which would be medical negligence that constitutes medical malpractice. . if he knew he was removing a uterus that was not diseased, making it acceptable to burn the tissue since there was no abnormality to mask, then he performed an unwarranted, unnecessary surgery on Paulicivic. Defiling a corpse is not condoned by the judicial system, and is a crime subject to prosecution in criminal court. A corpse is not considered medical waste. The law does not tolerate abuse of a dead body. Examples of medical waste are syringes and needles, blood soaked gauze and sponges, not extirpated female organs. The uterus is a hormone responsive reproductive sex organ that supports the bladder and the bowel. It’s a powerful muscle that contracts during orgasm. Without it women do not experience uterine orgasm. The uterus also produces prostacyclin, which gives women cardiovascular protection. When the uterus is removed women have a 3X greater incidence of heart disease, and when the ovaries are removed it is 7X greater. The uniquely female and male organs are not only for reproduction, they have many other critically important functions and are at the core of our identity.
Submitted by UglyTruth on Mon, 2010-09-20 00:18.
Even though this may not be a classic medical malpractice lawsuit, it tells us a lot about this doctor and how he has fun removing organs and then desecrating them. It's all a big joke to him after he preformed a major surgery which causes life long damage. He was having so much fun, he decided to brand her uterus too. There are no laws to reprimand or put doctors in jail for performing unnecessary surgeries or desecrating organs, we only have civil suits as a remedy, so please don't take that away too.
Submitted by Nvrlknbk on Sat, 2010-09-18 19:39.
I see this as just another bs lawsuit. Does not sound like the leg burns were severe, granted should not have happened but it's not as though the uterus was placed back inside her, it was going to be medically disposed of anyway. This is just another waste of time, money and overloading court systems that are way to overloaded in the first place.
Submitted by Traveler on Sat, 2010-09-18 14:34.
Unless the burns on her legs were pretty severe, this lawsuit seems completely frivolous. Regardless of whether or not it was necessary, "branding" her uterus certainly caused no harm to her. The claim of "loss of consortium" highlights the frivolous nature of this lawsuit. The only real harm to this woman, if any, would be from the leg burns. To recover damages in a lawsuit, a plaintiff needs to prove that there was harm from a mistake, not just that a mistake happened.
Submitted by fighting4change on Sat, 2010-09-18 12:25.
Yes, it would be nice if we could do the necessary research and trust that research but, sadly, that's no guarantee that we won't be victimized by the greedy hyst industry / gold mine. In "The Treatment Trap", there's a story of a woman who had worked as a scientist at MIT and in the private sector who wanted treatment for fibroids. After doing extensive research to find a reputable surgeon skilled in myomectomy (as she wanted to keep her uterus) she found a doctor who had excellent credentials. He was an associate professor of ob/gyn at a major teaching hospital, taught at Harvard, published articles on fibroids in the medical literature, and was a reproductive endocrinologist. At the office visit, he asked if she wanted to be included in a drug clinical trial for fibroids. She declined and stated that she wanted a myomectomy. He stated that in her case, the only alternative was hysterectomy. She reluctantly agreed since he was the expert and was highly regarded in his field. She demanded that HE do the surgery instead of a resident. He was emphatic that he would. She requested an epidural as she wanted to be awake during surgery. He agreed. Nothing went as planned. She received general anesthesia and a resident did the surgery. This resident didn't even know how to remove her surgical staples. She has major muscle and nerve damage and cannot sit, stand or lie down in any one position for any length of time without extreme pain. She has not been able to return to work. She later discovered that, unbeknownst to her, by having a hysterectomy, this doctor included her in his drug clinical trial hysterectomy control group. This doctor's license was later temporarily revoked, not for his misconduct in this woman's case, but for falsifying scientific data in federally funded medical research including altering and fabricating patient medical records. He now works for a pharmaceutical company overseeing clinical trials on women's health. Very scary!
Submitted by fighting4change on Sat, 2010-09-18 11:52.
Response to RN fredymart: Many patients trust and respect their gynecologists. It's not uncommon to have a long-term doctor-patient relationship with them. This puts us at even more risk of being victimized by their deceptive tactics (cancer scare tactics are quite common). I'm sure many women who've had ongoing gynecological issues are relieved after surgery to think that they'll no longer have the pain, bleeding, etc. Or, if they're told they had cancer or "pre-cancer", they're relieved to hear that it was not cancer. However, what gyns fail to tell them and they don't realize until later (after the incision heals) is that there are many adverse effects of hysterectomy that are permanent and progressive that are far worse than the gyn issues they had. And there are many situations where the purported "cure" (hysterectomy) doesn't even correct the initial problem (e.g. pelvic pain). A surgeon can have the best of surgical skills but that's a moot point when he/she is unnecessarily removing vital organs and failing to provide informed consent. This is fraud yet the states' medical boards and attorney generals turn a blind eye. Did you know that doctors' wives are the #1 hysterectomy victims and nurses are #2? I suppose this is because they have the most trust in medical professionals. Read The Treatment Trap; it's a real eye-opener about the dangers of treatment overuse.
Submitted by fredymarte on Sat, 2010-09-18 04:19.
i'm a registered nurse who work at a hospital that this doctor performs some of his surgeries and have actually taken care of his patients, his patients have nothing but good words to say about him, how professional he is and how good dr. alinsod is. i've never heard any negative comment from his patients in my 3 years of taking care of dr. alinsod's patients thats why i'm so surprised about this lady suing him. i bet it's nothing but opportunistic way of this lady and her lawyer to get money from him. Dr. Alinsod has pioneered his practice to help women with pelvic and bladder problems among other things, to live life normally as they should, what a pity for others to tarnish his name, reputation and his good practice out of greed!
Submitted by Vivica on Sat, 2010-09-18 19:18.
@Fredymarte: Thank you for commenting, because you bring focus to a set of individuals who have been excluded from this discussion thus far. What about the other health care professionals who allowed Alinsod to commit this act- the nurses, technicians, and other medical staff who stood idly by and said nothing, while Alinsod wielded the cauterizing tool to write onto Paulicivic's uterus, and then take +50 pictures of himself and his trophy afterwards? They are guilty in their right for their silence and participation, and should be held responsible as well. "Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
Submitted by Cynthia Jones on Fri, 2010-09-17 17:23.
This really brought out some feminine rage! What a preposterous thing for a doctor to do! The guy is sick. Something is wrong there. How could he burn her with the "branding device" on the legs anyway once the organ was removed? Was he high? Is this another case of a doctor addicted to pain meds and doing surgery? I hope she gets everything she wants outta this. He screwed-up, bad.
Submitted by ragu4u on Fri, 2010-09-17 11:09.
I guess it was so he wouldn't lose track of who it belonged to, among the thousands of removed uteri laying around his office.
Submitted by Ursus Indomitus on Thu, 2010-09-16 06:44.
Doctors are idiots for the most part. THIS one should be sent back whence he came. There are too many wacked out foreigners running loose in the USA. THANK YOU, gummint, for securing our borders and allowing such a lax LEGAL immigration policy.
Submitted by Sheila on Wed, 2010-09-15 18:37.
@ HERSFoundation: Informed consent? With the internet in virtually household, with it available in every library, there is never a reason why an individual should be ignorant of any treatment she may be receiving today. People have the responsibility to themselves, to their families, to their doctors, to their communities to thoroughly research all treatment options - particularly when surgery is proposed. This couple is just looking for some easy money.
Submitted by Vivica on Thu, 2010-09-16 17:21.
@Sheila: What about those who are not as privileged as you, who are uneducated, poor, mentally challenged, living in a rural, removed setting, who don't know the medical lingo or have the experience and savvy in navigating the minefield of misinformation and contradictions that is prevalent on the web and in the literature? Look up alternatives to hysterectomy and you'll be bombarded with self promoting doctors and medical device manufacturers who advocate one particular procedure as the next best thing since sliced bread, while never mentioning the adverse effects of the procedure because it is not in their best financial interest. Who do you believe? Look for consequences of hysterectomy on the web and personal anecdotes run the gamut. You can go on forums and women say that having a hysterectomy is the best thing they've ever done, that they've never felt better, and that sex is phenomenal, without any mention of the facts- that the vagina is sutured shut into a closed pocket, that uterine contractions that occur during orgasm are lost, that nerves are severed and the blood supply to the pelvis is diminished, that many other women report little to no sexual feeling whatsoever. It is near impossible for a person to be fully informed of all the true consequences of a surgery on their own. Subsequent doctors' opinions can be wrong or contradictory. And if your dr tells you that time is of the essence, then you're not going to dilly dally in making a decision.
Submitted by UglyTruth on Thu, 2010-09-16 00:38.
Sheila, it is the Doctor who evaluates the patient and suggests treatment, and it is the Doctor who ultimately takes a knife and cuts organs out of patients while they are under anesthesia, and then it is the Doctor who is paid. Are you saying that the doctor has no responsibility? There is more misinformation on the internet about hysterectomy than there is correct information. Hysterectomy is a business. For Gynecologists to stay in business in the U.S., they must remove the uterus of at least 600,000 women every year. If you look at resident programs a certain number of hysterectomies are promised to new recruits as an incentive to come to their hospital. One might wonder how they can guarantee so many every year, but you just have to follow the money. Women are being deceived and pushed into these surgeries with scare tactics. A woman can get 20 or 100 opinions and they are all still wrong because hysterectomy is the bread and butter of the industry and none of these doctors wants to lose their income. Women are tricked and lied to by these licensed doctors who should be held responsible, but they are not. Gynecologists have removed the reproductive sex organs of nearly half the population of women under the age of 65 in the U.S. It's an alarming statistic.
Submitted by Sheila on Wed, 2010-09-15 18:34.
@fighting4change: WRONG! This couple is suing because her uterus was branded. As to the pain, etc., she should have researched that prior to having the surgery. If the uterus was wrongly removed, it's still her fault - have you never heard of a second opinion? I think the doctor should countersue. Their stupidity has and will cost him a lot of money.
Submitted by fighting4change on Wed, 2010-09-15 14:33.
Sheila said: "I have known more than a few women who've had hysterectomies; most of them suffered from emotional problems afterward. I am disgusted that this couple is suing. The organ was already removed. It is cretins like this who are responsible for the high cost of our healthcare." You admitted that most women you know who've had a hysterectomy have suffered from emotional problems as a result. Sadly, it's estimated that as many as 70% of women suffer from depression resulting from hysterectomy. For some it's short lived but for many it becomes a chronic state. 53% actually have suicidal thoughts after hysterectomy. This alone has HUGE societal implications. But there are MANY other life-long adverse effects of hysterectomy which VERY FEW gynecologists tell their patients. Hysterectomy is their GOLD MINE and they will not give it up without a fight. The husband is suing for "loss of consortium." When a woman is hysterectomized, her sexual desire and function are greatly diminished. 75% lose desire, 66% lose arousal and 54% lose sensation. This can be explained by the severing of nerves, blood vessels and ligaments causing diminished sensation to the pelvis, genitalia, vagina, clitoris and breasts. If a woman experienced uterine orgasms, she will no longer experience them. HUGE LOSS! Many women also lose their joy and vibrancy as well as romantic and maternal loving feelings. This is devastating beyond explanation. I know from experience. This couple SHOULD be suing and I hope they win BIG. Unwarranted hysterectomies put a HUGE burden on health care costs due to the increased health care these women require for the rest of their lives. It's about time society take notice and become outraged at the unethical, fraudulent tactics used by these gynecologists. Yes, it's hard to comprehend that a surgery that's SO common (620,000 every year in the U.S., 1 per minute) could be so damaging and life-shattering. That's why it continues. It's time for women to speak out! No more hiding behind the shame and embarrassment for those who have been victimized. Go to www.hersfoundation.org to learn the facts about hysterectomy with or without ovary removal.
Submitted by Ursus Indomitus on Thu, 2010-09-16 06:45.
Women are loony anyway. Come on, you ALL know it's true. No PC here. Just admit it and carry on.
Submitted by UglyTruth on Thu, 2010-09-16 14:15.
It's interesting that people make fun of women when they speak up because they don't want to be hacked up by a doctor. If these doctors were castrating and removing the sex organs from 1/3 of the male population, the men would probably do more than speak up. Would they be loony too?
Submitted by HERSFoundation on Wed, 2010-09-15 12:07.
organismal, It's safe to assume that Ingrid had not been informed by Alinsrod of the consequences of the surgery. Women scheduled for hysterectomies who watch the video "Female Anatomy: the Lifelong Functions of the Female Organs" rarely go ahead with the surgery. This short video explains the lifelong functions of the female organs, and what happens to a woman's body when they are removed. Some of the multitude of consequences of hysterectomy are loss of orgasm, loss of support to the bladder and bowel, 3X greater incidence of heart disease over women with intact uterus, 7X greater incidence of heart disease when the ovaries are removed and increased incidence of Parkinson's disease. You can watch the video at www.hersfoundation.org/anatomy.
Submitted by organismal on Wed, 2010-09-15 00:04.
it is absolutely disgusting that he would do this to her body without her consent. even if it is medical waste, when i go under surgery, i am putting trust in the doctor to treat me and my body with some respect, not as playthings. that being said, had it been my surgery, i probably would have thought it was hilarious anyway. i wish they'd let you keep medical waste, i'd love to have my uterus in a jar. yeah, i'm weird, but i just think living bodies are so cool (: gracie, i would refrain from making assumptions about why the uterus was removed. even if it was healthy, it could possibly have been her own choice as a permanent way of birth control, etc. she may have been perfectly aware of the possible side effects of the surgery. don't assume.
Submitted by b-dog on Tue, 2010-09-14 22:37.
Just wondering.... but why does this woman give a sh*t?? It's medical waste, so who cares if he branded it, cut it open, let students practice on it, or played floor hockey with it??
Submitted by Fireblood on Tue, 2010-09-14 23:12.
I couldn't agree more. According to the article, there were photographs made of the branding that showed it was done after the organ was removed, so the woman's legs could not have been burned as a result. I would be willing to bet that the woman's complaints about feelings of burn did not surface until after the branding photos were seen by her. And what's this about the husband suing for loss of consortium? Any loss of consortium would have resulted from the removal of the organ, not from what happened to it after removal. If a barber mistreats hair that has fallen to the floor after its been cut from someones scalp, does that affect their scalp? Absolutely not! And so it is with the uterus. So what if the uterus was branded after removal? The husband should not be trying to consort with it, he should be focusing his attention on his wife. Unless his barber mistreated his hair on the floor after his last haircut and somehow that came back to affect his brain. And finally, so what if a doctor uses cauterization to label a tissue specimen? That seems like a pretty failsafe way to make sure that the tissue doesn't get mixed up with someone else's when it goes to the lab for a pathology report. Better to have a patient's uterus be unmistakably labeled with their name cauterized into it than to have it mixed up with someone else's and have a wrong diagnosis returned by the pathologist to two different people whose tissues were switched.
Submitted by Fireblood on Tue, 2010-09-14 23:33.
And one more thought about the claim of burns on the woman's legs -- does it really make sense that after removing the uterus, the doctor would hold it over the patient's legs to cauterize it, and that's how the leg burns came about? C'mon, the patient was under a general anaesthetic and would have been draped with sterile surgical towels with only the target area being exposed. Immediately after removing the organ, the doctor would have been attending to controlling the bleeding from the woman's body where the organ had been rather than cauterizing the removed organ. The organ would have been set on a specimen table until he could finish the final crucial steps of the operation first, including tying off bleeders and packing the woman's internal surgical area with gauze, followed by attention to critical post-operative steps such as lifting her up out of anesthesia and monitoring her vital signs during the process. To think that the doctor would have been focusing his attention at that point in the procedure on the removed organ instead of on the living patient under his care would not make sense, except to someone who had suffered severe brain damage because their barber had not only stomped on their hair after it had fallen to the floor, but had also cursed at it and had even dyed the fallen whiskers a shocking color.
Submitted by Gracie on Tue, 2010-09-14 20:16.
This is so typical of OBGYN'S. First they castrate you, then they totally dis-respect your body by humiliating you. Women have no rights when it comes to their bodies. We are lied to about the problems we will be having after having a hysterectomy/castration. They tell us it doesn't affect our sex lives and that we will be better than ever. A LIE! We are told we will be able to go back to work and everything will be great. A LIE! We are told it won't affect our health. A LIE! Your life, health, sexual enjoyment, career and marriage will never be the same as before your surgery. Doctors don't care what happens to you, only that they make billions of dollars off of hysterectomized and castrated women. Why else would you go into this field? Please stay after from gynecologists because they are trained to do surgeries. See you family doctor if you are having problems or better yet go to the HERS Foundation web site and watch the DVD 'Female Anatomy, read what the real experts are saying about their life after (women who have had this barbaric surgery) and order the 'H Word' book for yourself and for your family and friends. I am positive the organ wasn't even diseased and shouldn't have been removed. So yes this is malpractice. But doctors are God in the eyes of the courts. They can do no harm, but everyday women are being stripped of their hormonal sexual organs; the uterus, ovaries and cervix for money. 99% of hysterectomies are unnecessary. A hysterectomy/castration should only be done when there is confirmed cancer. If men were being castrated by the thousands like women, there would have been a law passed years ago. It is barbaric to castrate a man, but not a woman!!! It is still a man's world.
Submitted by jenny on Tue, 2010-09-14 20:35.
Just because you had a bad hysterectomy experience doesn't mean that these surgeries are not necessary. I'm a woman and believe in women's issues but I also believe in listening to good doctors explain diagnosis and treatment. My mother-in-law was having health issues that were finally narrowed down to her uterus. Though not cancer, as you stated, having a hysterectomy greatly improved her health and well-being. She's doing great. Your statement that "A hysterectomy/castration should only be done when there is confirmed cancer," is a very ignorant one. By the way, the doctor doesn't get paid very much for these procedures. If the woman suing is doing fine, as far as her hysterectomy, I would thank the doctor but make him pay for the burn treatment.
Submitted by HERSFoundation on Wed, 2010-09-15 12:17.
Regardless of the reason a hysterectomy is done, whether it is life saving or not, it is a damaging surgery. The only justifiable hysterectomy is when a woman has been given all of the information about the consequences of the surgery that is requisite to informed consent and she chooses to undergo the surgery. No one is trying to tell women what they should, or should not do. Women are quite capable of making a decision about hysterectomy when they are provided with full disclosure about their medical condition for which the surgery is recommended, the alternatives in treatment, the risks of the alternatives, and the consequences of hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries. Most people are unaware that the ovaries are the female gonads, and removal of the ovaries is castration. Watch the short video "Female Anatomy: the Lifelong Functions of the Female Organs" at www.hersfoundation.org/anatomy. Let us know what you think about hysterectomy and informed consent.
Submitted by UglyTruth on Tue, 2010-09-14 18:32.
This is a typical example of how gynecologists disrespect women in the US. This one just got caught. Over a half a million unnecessary hysterectomies are performed every year in the US, and these doctors think it's funny how they keep getting away with it and stuffing their pockets with money.
Submitted by deprogrammed on Tue, 2010-09-14 16:50.
It was incredibly ignorant of the so-called doctor. Seems more like frat boy behavior than professional medical behavior, which makes his decision making skills suspect. Would you trust a doctor who engages in such childish behavior in the midst of his professional duties?
Submitted by Vivica on Tue, 2010-09-14 14:11.
Vink- you're a misogynistic, ignorant, deranged pig. If it was your penis that was cut off and hung to dry with someone else's graffiti written all over it, and then held up to be mocked at, I'm sure you'd feel differently. But then again, you probably have nothing to write home about/on to begin with.
Submitted by vink on Tue, 2010-09-14 15:50.
Vivica, with a name like that, you're probably a fat black chick. Oink, Bitch! -- That's OK - More cushion for the pushin! As for your comment, whatever, chubba-wubba. For spite, I am going to find me a hot chick with low self esteem this weekend, tell her how awesome she is, get her drunk, then ride her hard and put her away wet. Broads are so ***ing easy.
Submitted by annaleigh on Sun, 2011-03-06 04:17.
you got me wet! i love the way you think
Submitted by gkg961 on Tue, 2010-09-14 13:33.
Twisted S.O.B.
Submitted by ghost on Tue, 2010-09-14 12:44.
I guess some doctors are just borderline weirdos! Besides that this is not the first time this has happened. There was a gynecologist here a number of years back who was reprimanded after he was caught on film performing the same procedure and using a similar tool to brand the letters "UK" on the uterus he removed from his patients. It was later revealed he was a University of Kentucky graduate. Should this doctor be sued? No!! Maybe give him a good ass chewing and tell him not to do this again!
Submitted by vink on Tue, 2010-09-14 12:08.
The "Plaintiffs" sound like money hungry wackos. The worthless uterus was going in the garbage anyway. And, the comment by the radical lesbo extremist below from HERSfoundation; "Will ... Ingrid be allowed to amputate and brand the gynecologists penis? - as a friendly gesture, of course! There is a more basic issue here, it reveals the lack of regard for the importance of the female organs, the prevailing unprincipled attitude of medicine toward women..." You can almost smell the hate this *** has towards men. Must be an ugly bitch. All three of these sickos should be soundly beaten with the broad's decaying uterus.
Submitted by wsanto on Tue, 2010-09-14 10:29.
The burns on her leg (s) must be from a misplaced Bovie-pad or is a bogus complaint and may be unrelated to the branding. The Bovie-pad is not a "grounding-pad". It completes the circuit to the electro-cautery and distributes that current over a large area to safely exit the body. There is no electrical ground in the OR. The line-isolation system in the OR reduces the likelihood of electrical shock by removing ground from all circuits utilized in the OR. Nothing is grounded in the OR. A loud alarm goes off if any piece of equipment accidently becomes grounded.The uterus had to be either still attached to the patient or was laid on top of the patient for branding in order to complete the circuit.
Submitted by HERSFoundation on Tue, 2010-09-14 10:14.
Will judicial remedy be that Ingrid be allowed to amputate and brand the gynecologists penis? - as a friendly gesture, of course! There is a more basic issue here, it reveals the lack of regard for the importance of the female organs, the prevailing unprincipled attitude of medicine toward women, and the lack of integrity shown by Red Alinsod. The uterus is a hormone responsive reproductive sex organ that supports the bladder and bowel. Women who experience uterine contractions with orgasm will not experience them without a uterus. When the uterus is removed women have a 3X greater incidence of cardiovascular disease, and when the ovaries are removed the incidence is 7X greater. Watch the short video "Female Anatomy: the Lifelong Functions of the Female Organs", at www.hersfoundation.org/anatomy. The functions of the uterus and ovaries are critically important to a woman's health and well-being all of her life.
Submitted by Sheila on Tue, 2010-09-14 16:24.
What a ridiculous comment! The organ was removed prior to the branding, and the branding had nothing to do with whether or not the uterus was removed. Did you bother reading the article, or do you just hate men that much? Comments such as yours make all women sound stupid.
Submitted by glenp on Tue, 2010-09-14 10:06.
I hope no one used my foreskin after circumcision to make a wallet from it. Rub it a few times and you get a 3 suit piece of luggage
Submitted by Sheila on Tue, 2010-09-14 06:44.
I have known more than a few women who've had hysterectomies; most of them suffered from emotional problems afterward. I am disgusted that this couple is suing. The organ was already removed. It is cretins like this who are responsible for the high cost of our healthcare.
Submitted by Acacia59 on Wed, 2010-10-06 10:02.
Totally agree. Was this woman going to save it for another reason?
Submitted by sdg4uk on Tue, 2010-09-14 05:21.
Please do your homework before printing "the outcome of lawsuits could not be determined." If Dr. Guiler had been found guilty, I feel confident that you would have determined that verdict and printed it. Pathetic journalism as usual to attract readers or sell papers! Updated: Jury finds Lexington gynecologist not guilty By Anna Tong A Lexington gynecologist was found not guilty of unnecessarily removing an Owingsville woman's ovaries Tuesday night. http://www.kentuckylawblog.com/2008/07/hl-medical-negl.html
Submitted by Wallace Bonham on Tue, 2010-09-14 13:01.
Get a life!
Submitted by magnum on Mon, 2010-09-13 22:58.
It's difficult to "write" with bipolar current, so it's a fairly safe assumption that he was using monopolar current, which requires a grounding pad. With monopolar current, the organ had to be still in contact with the patient, unless he removed the grounding pad from the patient and attached it directly to the removed specimen (unlikely without pissing off the pathologist). I can't tell from the complaint whether she actually sustained injury due to stray current from the unnecessary use of electrosurgery, but it was a risky thing to do regardless. Particularly with monopolar current, which completes the circuit with a grounding pad on the patient's thigh, there is high risk of injury from stray current. These injuries can occur even with proper placement of the grounding pads, and are at even higher risk in laparoscopic surgeries, when opportunities for capacitance are enhanced. When used in higher voltage modes (coag), current can "arc" to nearby tissue causing catastrophic injury. This surgeon was negligent in using a surgical instrument to "play" during surgery. Whether or not there was injury, he was reckless and put the patient at unnecessary risk. Arcing current could have caused undetectable injury to the ureter or colon, that later could have been fatal. Her claims of psychological/emotional trauma seem far-fetched, but I don't blame her for filing suit.
October 11, 2024
DOCUMENT: Stupid, Crime

"Definitely Not A Bag Full Of Drugs"
Cops: Actually, the bag was definitely filled with drugs

  1. DOCUMENT: "Definitely Not A Bag Full Of Drugs"

  2. DOCUMENT: Friday Photo Fun Match Game

  3. BUSTER: Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?

  4. BUSTER: Woman, 22, In Pizza Rage Bust Over "Cold And Uncut" Domino’s Pie

  5. DOCUMENT: Cops: Hurricane Looters Hit Trump Merch Store