Posted on 09/17/2004 9:42:20 AM PDT by Osage Orange
Lawsuit enters Senate campaign
By Carmel Perez Snyder
Capitol Bureau
Angela Plummer admitted Thursday that Republican senate candidate Dr. Tom Coburn saved her life in 1990, but she stands by her allegations that he sterilized her without her consent.
Plummer, whose 13-year-old medical negligence lawsuit against Coburn has become an issue in the campaign, said she is glad her experience with him is getting a public airing.
"He told me when I went in for my checkup," she said. "He took me in a room by myself and said, 'By the way, I tied your tubes but don't tell anybody because I'll get in trouble.' I was just kind of in shock. It changed my life forever."
Coburn said reports about the old lawsuit are nothing more than a political attack launched by his Democratic opponent U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, D-Claremore.
"This is about the politics of personal destruction," Coburn said. "Angela told me at the time that she was happy it was done. This is coming from Carson's campaign, along with the whisper campaign that I'm an abortionist."
The lawsuit by Plummer, then 20, alleged that Coburn, an obstetrician, sterilized her without her consent. It was dismissed in trial court, reinstated on appeal and then dismissed again when she failed to pursue it.
At a news conference Thursday, Plummer further explained her feelings about the operation Coburn performed.
"Yes, he did save my life," she said. "I will give him credit for that, and I am very grateful for that, but cutting and burning my healthy fallopian tube did not save my life.
"I am not up here to try and smear him. I am up here because I wanted to have more children, and he took that away from me."
Coburn has said he received oral consent for the sterilization just before the procedure.
His campaign released a statement Thursday from Sherri Yaussey, a registered nurse who was present when Plummer, then Angela Rosson, received medical care in October 1990.
"It was determined that she had a ruptured pregnancy and needed surgery to stop the hemorrhaging," Yaussey said. "I specifically remember the patient wanted her tubes tied. She begged Dr. Coburn to tie her tubes.
"In our urgency to get her to surgery, a written consent for the tubal ligation was not signed but that did not change the fact that the patient wanted to have her tubes tied. After surgery, I had occasion to visit the patient in her room. She was sitting up in bed and pale. Her statement to me was one of relief that she was glad that she wouldn't be able to have any more children."
Yaussey also gave a deposition at the time of the original court case.
Plummer's case was initially dismissed for a violation of the statute of limitations. She said that after the appeals court reinstated the case, she had difficulty finding a new attorney and later was notified by mail that the case had been dismissed because she wasn't present on her court date.
Plummer said she was not offered a settlement in the case but wants to make sure what happened to her doesn't happen to other women.
"I want it stopped. He needs to realize he's not God.
"He changed my life forever. He violated me. That's the same as being raped. He took part of my womanhood."
Coburn said that his actions were appropriate.
"If the same thing happened today under the same circumstances, I'd do it exactly the same way," he said.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.
So survival is the only "higher end"?
Nothing I said would support such a view.
If she became pregnant again she has an increased risk of another tubal pregnancy, this is a life threatening condition. So although the tubal ligation was "elective" it was also "preventative". I am sure they did not have time to do a dye test to see if the other tube was in fact blocked (the tubal pregnancy necessitated an immediate operation), and the woman was given the option of having the tubal ligation done at the same time, so she would not have to undergo another surgery at a later date.
This is a common practice, although I agree a written consent should have been attempted.
Couldn't find a lawyer to take her case? That's one for Robert L. Ripley.
They are the ends of the generative faculty. The generative faculty of the individual is ordered to the good of the individual who can choose to exercise or not exercise that faculty.
Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.
Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?
They are the ends of the generative faculty.
You miss my point. You stated that limiting family size is not a "higher end" unless necessary for the existing family's survival, which seems to imply that survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival are the only "higher ends." (If you didn't mean to imply that, then how was your 'survival' statement responsive to my question, " How is limiting family size not a higher end?")
I meant that purely within the frame of the generative faculty, it does not make sense to procreate a person whose existence will destroy the generative faculty itself and all the fruits of its past procreation.
Clearly the generative faculty must first exist before it achieves its end - the survival of the procreator precedes procreation. Survival is "higher" in that sense.
If this is the case, their death would not only result in the destruction of their generative faculty, it would result also in the destruction of their ability to participate in any ancillary way to the end of procreation.
A person deprived of their generative faculty by extreme necessity is still able to raise the other children they have or to assist others in the care and nurturing of children.
It is better to contribute to the end in a limited way rather than to cease all contribution.
It's a yes.
One can choose to use or not use the faculty. There is no need to destroy one's faculty unless their is a supervening necessity. If there is no supervening, such drastic measures are merely a matter of whim.
nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.
This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.
Yes, and the italized text places on the definition of "supervening necessity" a constraint for which I see no logical necessity.
nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.
This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.
I meant "we" the family, not "we" the race. You yourself acknowledged that there might be cases where a new family member would push the existing family below subsistence.
Those 'Rats will stop at nothing to win. Hopefully, the shock value will subside by October and Coburn will regain the lead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.