As many as three New Zealand women allegedly had contraceptive devices planted in their uterus without their consent, a report from the country’s Health and Disability Commission has revealed.
The report was based on the case of Auckland woman, named as "Ms A", who discovered she had a intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) in her body after she visited her GP because she could not fall pregnant.
Her doctor carried out a number of tests before discovering the device, which Ms A had no knowledge of.
The device had been planted in Ms A during an abortion procedure at Epsom Day Unit in 2010.
The doctor who carried out the procedure, named as "Dr C", had mistakenly believed the she had wanted the contraceptive device.
He blamed the error on staff and systems at the hospital, the report stated.
Ms A told the Health and Disability Commissioner Anthony Hill that the mistake had caused her stress and disappointment because she had tried for five or six months to fall pregnant.
But the Auckland District Health Board rejected this, saying in its submission that the "inconvenience to her was brief."
It said Ms A had "suffered no physical injury or permanent harm" and said the doctor’s failure to obtain her consent was “in one case amongst thousands of similar cases".
But a nurse at the hospital told Commissioner Hill there had been two other cases she knew of where contraceptive devices were planted without knowledge or consent.
"[The nurse] recalls that staff were advised during training that a patient (not Ms A) had had an IUCD inserted without consent,” Mr Hill said.
"In addition, she recalls another incident where, after the insertion of an IUCD, she noticed that the patient concerned was on the pill."
"After she expressed concern, the error was recognised and the patient was returned tothe operating theatre and the IUCD was removed."
The doctor in the case accepted he had breached Ms A's right under 7(1) of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights, which states: “Services may be provided to a consumer only if that consumer makes an informed choice and gives informed consent, except where any enactment, or the common law, or any other provision of this Code provides otherwise," and had provided her with an apology.
Has something similar happened to you? Email sylvia.varnham@sbs.com.au
Read the full report from the New Zealand Health and Disability Commission:
Share
