INTL UK: Father blames hospital after baby born in waiting room dies

Father blames hospital after baby born in waiting room dies

Published May 21, 2012

| NewsCore

An investigation was underway Saturday into the death of a baby who was born in a hospital waiting room in England's East Midlands region.

Steven Yorke and his partner Sara Proud went to Leicester Royal Infirmary on Sunday night when Proud realized she was in labor.

When they arrived, they were told to wait in a side room with other expectant parents.

But 80 minutes later, baby Kyle was born while Yorke was trying to find help.

When two midwives did come to assist, the umbilical cord was wrapped around the baby's neck.

Kyle was quickly delivered and rushed off in the hope of being revived, but those attempts were unsuccessful.

Yorke told Sky News, "It's numbing. We're not sleeping well, we're not eating well The slightest thing and we'll cry. Sara's not left the house at all.

"It's affected the children in a big way. What can you say? They've let us down. I actually believe they neglected us -- they didn't give us the care we deserve and that's purely it."

Even after the birth, Proud was left to deliver the placenta in the waiting room and only realized Kyle had died when Yorke told her what had happened.

Leicester Royal Infirmary has admitted that mistakes were made.

The family is now waiting for autopsy results that will reveal whether Kyle could have been saved with better care.

Click for more from Sky News.
Print Close

URL

http://www.foxnews.comhttp://www.fo...ospital-after-baby-born-in-waiting-room-dies/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...born-in-waiting-room-dies/print#ixzz1vXUI9mi5

it's the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE so they can do no wrong it's like OBama you can't criticise them because it's nationalised, nothing on the MSM, 80 minutes seems a long time

Sad.
This is what Obama and a good portion of the citizens here want for the USA

THEY DID NOT TAKE HER IN IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE BABY CAME IN THE WAITING ROOM????????????????
She ALSO could have bled to death, DIED, bled out, from the afterbirth not being promptly and properly delivered AFTER the baby came.

In 1954, my mother, who had a private doctor, good insurance, and was in labor in the hospital had her doctor ignore her telling him there was something wrong. In his conceit he said he was the doctor, he knew best, and delivered my mother a dead baby with the cord wrapped around her neck. Arrogance can happen anywhere to anyone............

TerryK said:

Sad.
This is what Obama and a good portion of the citizens here want for the USA

Click to expand...

Correct. And people have no idea how health care services of all types will plummet with nationalization. They think they will suddenly have access to health care that people normally pay an arm and a leg to have access to. They won't. More than likely even the current level of free care will plummet just as much if not more because physicians that could afford pro bono work will no longer be able to offer that kind of charity.

Also, people assume that they'll have access to health care for quality of life issues ... children with severe disabilities, elders with chronic problems, obesity related conditions, etc. All of those as well as situations like high risk pregnancies will be weighed and balanced based on QOL scales and a lot of people are going to find themselves shut out because cost of care.

Kathy in FL said:

Correct. And people have no idea how health care services of all types will plummet with nationalization. They think they will suddenly have access to health care that people normally pay an arm and a leg to have access to. They won't. More than likely even the current level of free care will plummet just as much if not more because physicians that could afford pro bono work will no longer be able to offer that kind of charity.

Also, people assume that they'll have access to health care for quality of life issues ... children with severe disabilities, elders with chronic problems, obesity related conditions, etc. All of those as well as situations like high risk pregnancies will be weighed and balanced based on QOL scales and a lot of people are going to find themselves shut out because cost of care.

Click to expand...

Yes you said it in a nut shell Kathy. I have tried to tell people this but they think they will get better care at a low cost and can;t or won't see what it really will be.

I know quite a lot of ppl on medicaid and many of them are afraid of what's going to happen. a lot of them are aware that their quality of care will go down when everyone else is added to it.

Doctors lose money on every Medicaid patient.
They make their money on people with regular insurance.
Put everyone on medicaid and continue to cut reimbursment rates and there is no incentive to be a doctor.

I saw a women nearly give birth un a US hospital waiting room once - people were screaming "she's having a baby right now!" while a robot like receptionist just kept saying "please return to the line" over and over. I was only 16, so this was decades ago but I'll never forget dropping to the floor to get ready to catch that baby if I had too. Thankfully someone finally came in with a gurney and I suspect that baby was born moments later.

That was in a huge urban "charity" hospital, but of course most of those are gone now. This isn't about socialized medicine which in my personal experience tends to do better for most people than the US ration system via insurance policy and poverty medical cards (which many working people don't have). It is about disorganized hospitals with people forced to keep putting out so many fires at once that the just can't cope with something that refuses to play by the admission rules of the ER and babies are like that. Look for this sort of thing in the US as more ER's close and more funding for staff is cut. For profit medicine is just as likely if not more likely to cut expenses down below a real working number of staff (outside of affluent and well run private hospitals for the well healed and well insured); they do it for different reasons and ration the care differently than the NHS or Swedish Health service, but it still happens every day.

don't know what he's complaining about -it was all FREE


jeesh


</sarcasm off>

Coming soon to a hospital near you compliments of Obamacare.

In fact, the O administration is ALREADY getting us "mentally conditioned" to accept a lower standard of care---

First, they come out withe message that women don't need as many mammograms---even in the most high-risk ages of women over 40. That is the age, iirc, at which most cancers are discovered--and EARLY detection is CRUCIAL if lives are to be saved.

Now, just last week, another agency came out with recommendations to DROP the PSA test for prostate cancer for ALL men---even though it's been in use for two decades. First they said to drop it only for men over 75, but now they say--for ALL men. Again, EARLY detection of prostate cancer is CRUCIAL to saving lives.

What is the pattern here?

If Obamacare CANNOT work (in the sense of providing the much-vaunted "FREE" medical care to everyone at low cost overall in terms of taxes or required pay-in), then the ONLY solution is to have FEWER SICK PEOPLE using the system.

The EASIEST way to get rid of "high-cost sick people" is---just let them DIE.

Doing away with early detection via mammograms and PSA testing is one SURE way of making sure that will happen.

By the time cancer IS diagnosed in these populations, they will be told either that they are so old, or the cancer is so far advanced, or BOTH, that they ONLY prescribed government care is "palliative"--and they will be consigned to a hospice and put on pain meds until they kick the bucket---a FAR cheaper alternative for the government than diagnosing the cancer EARLY and TREATING it.

Oh yes, folks,---this is EXACTLY where we're headed.

If Obama care (or other) National Program falls through look for the insurance companies to ration in the same way, especially if there is a no "pre-existing" conditions clause. Until recently many companies employed people whose job it was to deny almost any expensive treatment and usually did this by claiming that some how the condition was already there. Your congress critter and Federal Employees had much less of a problem because their Private insurance companies had to obey a law against not covering pre-exitsing conditions; and since they kept writing the insurance policies they must have managed to make some profit doing it.

If she had given birth at home with a midwife, she would have gotten much better care.

naturallysweet said:

If she had given birth at home with a midwife, she would have gotten much better care.

Click to expand...

I second that, although it is not for everyone.

Our youngest son was born at home with a midwife. The cord was around his neck and was a fairly short cord. The Midwife realized this before it became a problem and slipped the cord from around his neck between contractions (when I was not pushing). Son was born without incident and had Apgars of 8 and 10.

mzkitty said:

In 1954, my mother, who had a private doctor, good insurance, and was in labor in the hospital had her doctor ignore her telling him there was something wrong. In his conceit he said he was the doctor, he knew best, and delivered my mother a dead baby with the cord wrapped around her neck. Arrogance can happen anywhere to anyone............

Click to expand...

agreed if bankers screw up we get a recession, if drs screw up we get death

O care must be of a lower standard since there are so many uninsured Americans, someone has to pay, the irony is that the total cost to the nation of healthcare will rise to 25% of GDP

Your congress critter and Federal Employees had much less of a problem because their Private insurance companies had to obey a law against not covering pre-exitsing conditions; and since they kept writing the insurance policies they must have managed to make some profit doing it.

Click to expand...

.Gov does not regularly comparison-shop insurance policies, they just pay the higher premiums and whine for more tax dollars.

Blastoff said:

.Gov does not regularly comparison-shop insurance policies, they just pay the higher premiums and whine for more tax dollars.

Click to expand...

Actually, this could have changed but when I was a Personal Clerk twenty years ago the companies had to low bid each other every single year. Some more expensive plans were allowed but any "top ups" were paid by the employee not the government. Employees could go for old fashioned 80/20 plans to ones that covered private rooms at the spa but they paid much higher co-pays for the fancy plans. All companies had to provide some defined benefits like child birth, other benefits got political with birth control being required or forbidden by different administrations.