Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to complain about midwife (internal/assault)

273 replies

Hensinthehedgerow · 31/07/2013 14:41

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong section. I'm in search of some opinions. This may not sound like much to complain about to some people. But this has really affected me and my marriage and I can't seem to move on.

In summary, I had a birth plan, it said no internal examinations and everything done needs to be explained to me. I thought she was doing an external examination, but instead did an internal which was very painful and basically in public view after my husband had been sent out of the room. I wish I had kicked her in the head and screamed and called the police, but I was holding my newborn baby and didn't Hmm I want to cry, I can't sleep.

I raised these issues with the som who said it shouldn't have happened an that she would speak to the midwives. Then emailed me to say the midwives agreed more communication would have been helpful to me wft

I have no idea if making a formal complaint will help. But can't let this go. Aibu to complain. The midwives were horrible and essentially bullied my husband. I guess it's wwyd? Sorry for the ramble.

OP posts:
mignonette · 31/07/2013 17:16

RE what Nurse said -

a patient admitted with hyper/hypo Glaycaemia can be combative until emergency treatment is carried out;

a patient with a head injury can be combative and confused until emergency treatment is carried out;

a patient who is severely toxic can be combative and confused until treatment is carried out;

a patient hit by a car and semi conscious at the roadside, combative and confused until emergency treatment is carried out;

and ditto ad nauseum. 'Restraining' in these contexts involvees protecting a patient from further harm. Blocks used to immobilise the head are 'restraints'. would you prefer we waited until hopefully a patient regains full consciousness until we apply them? Honestly....

Would those outraged at Nurses comments suggest we leave these patients to die unless they have conveniently brought along a relative to consent on their behalf? Or until they can consent lucidly?

MrsMangoBiscuit · 31/07/2013 17:16

Why do people think that it's acceptable for HCPs to not bother asking for consent?!?

mignonette · 31/07/2013 17:16

Glycaemia not Glay

Wheresmycaffeinedrip · 31/07/2013 17:17

The need for consent is there for a reason. If patients are informed and refuse then they can sign a disclaimer to say that they refused. Buck stops there. However if examination is done and there are complications of some kind and its discovered consent was not given then that's when there's trouble surely?

Original poster
Hensinthehedgerow · 31/07/2013 17:18

Nurse I can assure you none of those conditions applied to me I was perfectly able to hold a conversation and make my own decision. Or would you have held me down for that examination? Because YOU felt it was in my best interest?

OP posts:
frogwatcher42 · 31/07/2013 17:19

maja00 - I just don't get it though. I truly don't. I would be grateful for a midwife to do anything to make sure that everything was ok and through my experience an internal is necessary for that to pick up things that can't be known from the outside. It could be life saving.

If you do something many times a day, day in and day out, in stressful conditions, surely wording something slightly vaguely can be forgiven. Surely we should be grateful for midwives and be thanking them, not beating them with a stick.

If a doctor stopped beside me in a car crash and did a check on me without my permission that could potentially save my life I would be grateful, not damning. Surely child birth is a little like a road crash in that it can be very dangerous and things can be unpredictable and damage unseen.

maja00 · 31/07/2013 17:19

mignonette - nurse didn't give any indication about whether the patients she didn't gain consent from had the capacity to consent. Obviously in the OP's situation she was completely capable.

ANormalOne · 31/07/2013 17:19

mingon none of those examples are at all comparable to a woman who is fully conscious and not in a life threatening situation. OP was perfectly able to make an informed decision on whether to consent or not to consent to an internal examination, she was never given that choice.

MrsMangoBiscuit · 31/07/2013 17:21

mignonette, in the examples you have given the patient would be unable to give informed consent for necessary treatment in an emergency situation. The OP was breastfeeding her newborn, there was NO emergency. She hadn't had pain relief and was lucid, so informed consent was entirely possible, but was not gained. The two types of situation are so different you cannot possibly draw those kind of conclusions.

maja00 · 31/07/2013 17:21

frogwatcher - it's fine for you to consent to anything you want. It's not fine for HCPs to do things to other people without their consent.

The OP's situation wasn't a car crash, there was no emergency. There was no reason for anyone to do anything to her against her will. Being busy and doing the same things day in, day out, maybe no longer seeing the person in front of you as an individual, might be a reason for the midwife's behaviour - but it isn't an excuse.

ANormalOne · 31/07/2013 17:22

Surely we should be grateful for midwives and be thanking them, not beating them with a stick.

Yeah, don't expect me to thank anyone who puts their fingers inside me without my consent, that's not happening and I don't care how overworked they are or how stressful the jobs they do is.

frogwatcher42 · 31/07/2013 17:22

I thought op said the midwife said something like 'I am just going to check down there' or similar. Surely that is telling the op what is happening isnt it? I would have known what she meant.

SarahAndFuck · 31/07/2013 17:23

Rowtunda whatever terminology the midwife uses daily, it isn't good enough if the patients don't know what she's talking about.

She might know exactly what her little check involves, but to a patient someone unexpectedly inserting something into you might not be a 'little' check at all.

Saying you want to have "a look down there" means a look, not an internal exam, a "little check" to someone who does this 20 times a day doesn't translate to "internal exam" to people who have never had this happen before.

Every one of my midwives asked permission and explained what they were doing when they examined me. It wasn't difficult for them to say things like "I'm going to have to examine you inside, it might hurt, is this okay?" Doesn't really take much more to say that than to say "I'm going to do a little check" and is far more clear for all involved.

Nurse I don't know what you are like at work but on here you sound pretty awful, and perhaps it's just translating badly but really, it doesn't sound good or compassionate. It's your job, it's their life.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 31/07/2013 17:23

No mignonette - but crucially there should be clarity around the issue of consent. If consent cannot be obtained before treatment everyone should be clear about why that is.

None of those situations are related to the OP, or the general situation of internal examinations during maternity care, where consent could have been sought but wasn't.

MrsMangoBiscuit · 31/07/2013 17:24

frog, so you think the midwife assumed the OP knew what she meant. Ok, then it's fair to say that the OP would have assumed that the midwife would have read her notes before attempting anything invasive. She didn't. If she had she would have known that the OP did NOT consent.

mignonette · 31/07/2013 17:25

No Nurse didn't write an essay detailing every single aspect of each case and nor should she. It is not difficult to work out what she is referring to; she stated she is an A+E Nurse working in a high pressure environment.

I am not comparing the examples (both Nurses and mine) to OP's situation which if you re-read what I said in the context of a comment on the responses to Nurses earlier posts, that should be perfectly clear.
Bit ironic reading criticism of a MW who didn't read notes by some people who clearly do not read up thread properly or understand what a post is referring to Grin

maja00 · 31/07/2013 17:25

No, "a check" is not gaining informed consent for an internal examination, especially when the OP had expressly withdrawn consent for internals in her notes. "Can I do an internal examination?" is asking for consent.

Consent isn't an optional extra for when HCPs remember/aren't busy/feel like it. It's a basic. If some are forgetting this, then it is important people complain so they are reminded.

Bue · 31/07/2013 17:25

I can imagine what happened here. The OP said no examinations during labour - fine, that was respected. Afterwards I bet the mw said something like "Can I check down below to see if you need any stitches" (so she thought she had consent) but didn't explain that it is a) very stingy and painful after you've just pushed a baby out and b) that the fingers go slightly into the vagina. I actually wouldn't class it as an internal examination in the same way as one during labour, although there is some entrance. And in fact it wouldn't occur to me that someone who didn't want internal examinations in labour (which is totally valid) would also not want to be checked over for trauma!

Sounds like a case of poor communication.

maja00 · 31/07/2013 17:26

Not that ironic mignonette, since no one reading this thread is going to put their hand inside any other poster's vagina unasked.

frogwatcher42 · 31/07/2013 17:27

Jaja00 and A normal One - I could understand if the procedure was totally unconnected with the area of the body in question. Say you went for a tooth op and found that you had had an internal - that would be so wrong on so many levels.

But having had the experiences I have, and seen others with worse, I really do not think that anybody would want the internal damage that can happen during childbirth being not picked up and the only way to do that would be through an internal. If left it would be life changing or life threatening.

Wheresmycaffeinedrip · 31/07/2013 17:27

If she had said that, then clearly op. expected (like most of us would) that the midwife was familiar with her case notes and would only do the external exam.

I would not expect to have to repeat myself to every member of staff when there's a chart and a birth plan. They are supposed to look at charts aren't they? I mean that's what they are for, so all staff on shift can check each patient easily. You know, to avoid drug reactions and unwanted or unnecessary procedures.

mignonette · 31/07/2013 17:29

Too ironic. Some posters on here cannot even read information given in posts accurately whilst sitting merrily reading/relaxing in front of their screens.

God only knows how these people would cope when reading under pressure and then being expected to act upon it.

frogwatcher42 · 31/07/2013 17:29

Blue has put it perfectly. What he/she says is what I can't get.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 31/07/2013 17:31

But they could still ask frog, and bottom line is it's persons own decision which medical procedures they wish to/agree to have.

ANormalOne · 31/07/2013 17:31

frog

I really do not think that anybody would want the internal damage that can happen during childbirth being not picked up and the only way to do that would be through an internal.

I don't want internal damage to be missed and I don't want someone to touch me without my informed consent either. I don't think that's too much to ask for either.

If OP didn't want an internal examination that's her choice regardless of whether others agree with it - unless you're advocating we tie women down who refuse internals and examine them against their will then I'm sure you agree with me too.