A Study of a Malpractice Suit Against Yale University

Women's health has been a large focus in our class. Covered in class readings, discussions, and films. The major problem that stands out is the medical institution implementing policy and practice on culturally constructed ideas. "She is also reminded in myraid ways of the potential defectiveness of her birthing machine" (Davis-Floyd). The female sex organs are seen as problematic and unnecessary once child bearing is over. This hostility, or disregard for women's bodies becomes a disregard for women.

Michelle DiLieto of North Branford, Conn. was diagnosed with eudiometrical stromal sarcoma, type of cancer, by her gynecologist Dr. Scott Casper working for Casper and County Obstetrics. He suggested that she go to Dr. Peter Schwartz who worked for the Yale-New Haven Hospital. They removed her uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and lymph nodes. A third doctor, a first year fellow Dr Babak Edraki, removed the lymph nodes. Yale pathology, according to University spokesperson Thomas Conroy, confirmed the diagnosis. DiLieto had significant nerve damage from the operation which left her in so much pain she was unable to walk for months (Siegel). She was told her symptoms were from an inability to take estrogen as hormone replacement therapy because she was a "cancer survivor" (Siegel).

In 1997 a Harvard pathologist, who's identity is never revealed, found that she never had cancer. The tissue samples taken from her in 1995 that supposedly contained cancer was turned over to her by court order in 2004. The samples Yale used as a basis for the operation showed no cancer. She sued both Yale and Casper and County Obstetrics in 1997, in 2000 the jury sided with Yale and could not reach a verdict against Casper and County Obstetrics. Appealing to the state Supreme Court, the verdict for Yale was reversed in 2003 leading to a new trial leading to the court order for the samples. Last week in a new trail she was awarded with over 5 million dollars.

The articles reviewed vary little on the story, but reporting style changes the manner in which the story is received. The titles of each article give away most of the bias. "Doctors, Yale hit with $5 million verdict" (Sullo). We do not know why or how, but we know who and how much. "Jury Awards $5.2 Million For Hysterectomy Woman Calls Unnecessary" (Associated Press). "Calls Unnecessary" this is a continuing trend in all the articles: she claims, says, and calls. Never is it shown as fact that she was

completely right. She did not have cancer so why is it still her call. It has now entered the realm of proven fact. The flip of her calling it unneeded is the jury finding it so, "Jury Finds Hysterectomy Unneeded in New Branford Case" (nbc30). Once more, "Jury finds hysterectomy unnecessary" (Cox). The Cox article goes on with, "A jury believed a North Branford Woman's story..." I do not feel it is needed to have a jury support factual information. Yet from the way these read the jury proved or believed that this it true, the truth has no objectivity in this matter from some reason. The final article is biased right away because of the source, "University to appeal malpractice verdict" (Siegel). Yale Daily News focuses on what Yale is doing now and not on the issue or woman in question. While they do cover all the same facts their reporting style makes it seem like this is just a misstep that will be corrected in the future.

Cox's article talks with Dilieto as where no article really does. She is quoted throughout the entire article, none of these quotes found their way into other articles. "If they could give me all my organs back and if they could make me whole the way I was ten years ago then they could take the money back. But they can't do that." She feels like
a person here, we can relate to her from this quote. Yet the other articles limit her to short quotes or no quotes at all. Cox's article was the only one to also say the doctors made a mistake, "A medical mistake will cost Yale School of Medicine and the doctors involved millions of dollars." The rest of the articles stick with claims of malpractice, allegations, and she said.

Even in the matter of her physical pain after the operation that is also a claim made by her and her attorney; which is one of two people Steven Ecker according to all

the articles or Rodney Margol according to Siegel. Nerve damage is detectable and can be proven. Emotional stress is a claim because it is difficult to measure. You can see charts of nerve damage and doctors can inform you as to where it is and why it is causing you pain. Three articles say that she says she suffered damage and pain: Sullo, Siegel, and Associated Press. The other two articles do not even cover that fact. Sullo also includes the quote, "She was 44 years old, and immediately suffered the symptoms of menopause, she said" (Sullo). I would like to think the woman knows when she is going through menopause and that it can be easily diagnosed. The Siegel article says she returned to doctors with claims of pain and was told it was because she was a cancer survivor. Does that not prove there was pain, the doctors gave her an answer to her claim.

"The hospital itself is a highly sophisticated technocratic factory; the more technology the hospital has to offer, the better it is considered to be" (Davis-Floyd, 329). In the film Born in the U.S.A. the film showed doctors doing things for no reason other than that its done that way. If hospitals are technocratic factories then of course the technical experts are not to be questioned, after all they are the experts if we question them then where are we to get our answers? Yet once we look over the records the medical profession is not as objective as we would like to think. "DiLieto said she never received an apology for what happened to her. They were all very arrogant with regard to me, she said" (Siegel). Just because a bad product comes off the line does not mean the factory is at fault, because the ones running the factory are the experts while you are just claiming something they are marked as an expert. This woman has been proven right yet it is still the case of claims and say-so vs. expert opinions and the institution of the hospital.

The jury also awarded an additional $700,00 for mental anguish due to her doctors failure to inform DiLieto that she did not actually have cancer. Some of the articles cover additional anguish from direct statements from DiLieto, "I felt violated..." (Cox). In the other articles no pain is expressed directly from DiLieto it is all a claim and not even directly quoted from her. It is either passed through her lawyer or "according to DiLieto." This case seems half about human suffering that is marginalized by clams, second hand information through her lawyer, and according to statements. Even after it is proven she had an operation when one was not needed and suffered damage noted by her doctors there is no outrage. Female health issues that relate to the reproductive organs are a taboo subject in western society, referred to only as "female problems." If this subject was not so taboo then there would be more supportive language in these articles. Had the cancer been found in say her right kidney and been removed only to find later she was cancer free, we would have some outrage. The reporters would carry a supportive tone and might even remove claims with findings or fact.

This story is a prime example of the medical institution's blatant disregard for a mistake they made and the damage it caused. If the medical community regarded women's anatomies as more than just vessels for children then this might have not happened. Once a culture gives power to an institution over nature and what is best for the people then it will produce gross negligence like what happened to Ms. DiLieto. Women not only deserve better treatment, but all treatment given should be able to withstand academic examination.

Works Cited

Associated Press. "Jury Awards $5.2 Million For hysterectomy Woman Calls Unnecessary." Courant.com 11 Nov. 2005. 15 Nov. 2005. .

Cox, Erin. "Jury finds hysterectomy unnecessary." WTNH.com 11 Nov. 2005. 15 Nov. 2005. .

Davis-Floyd, Robbie E. "The Rituals of American Hospital Birth." "Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology." Ed. Davis McCurdy. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1994. 323-340.

Siegel, Steven. "University to appeal malpractice verdict." Yale Daily News 15 Nov. 2005. 15 Nov. 2005. .

Sullo, Michelle Tuccitto. "Doctors, Tale Hit with $5 million verdict." New Haven Register 11 Nov. 2005. 15 Nov. 2005. .

"Jury Finds Hysterectomy Unneeded In New Branford Case." nbc30.com 11 Nov. 2005. 15 Nov. 2005.

.