A woman identified in New Jersey medical board documents as “A.W.” (identified in New York documents as “Patient B”) was referred by Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania for an abortion by Brigham at his Flushing Women’s Center May 7-9, 1992. To avoid depersonalizing her, I’ll call her Anne.
The pregnancy was estimated at 24.5 weeks, past the legal limit for elective abortions in Pennsylvania. A D&E was initiated with the insertion of laminaria (dialators).
The following day, the abortion procedure was initiated under ultrasound. Brigham removed a fetal arm and part of the placenta, then detected a perforation. Although he was reaching for bony parts of the fetus and instead grasping soft tissues, he continued to grasp and pull with his instruments.This caused an 8-10 cm uterine laceration. Brigham perforated Anne’s sigmoid colon, and caused extensive cutting of the connective tissues of the colon.
Anne required a colostomy, and the removal of a 16 cm segment of her colon. Brigham admitted that he did not know what he was grasping with forceps, “the ultrasound picture was not consistent with what he felt,” but he “opened his forceps wider and grasped again, with force.”
Anne was transferred by ambulance to a hospital. She arrived in shock, and 3-4 units of packed cells were transfused.
In addition to the damage to her uterus and colon, Anne suffered damage to both ureters damaged. The medical board noted, “While perforation of the uterus is a known risk … and perhaps could be excused under some circumstances, the injuries caused by Respondent went far beyond perforation. … It is unacceptable for a practitioner to move his instrument in the body cavity without a clear understanding of their location. … The resultant injuries, particularly those to the bowel and ureters illustrate the point. These injuries were entirely unnecessary and caused by compounded acts outside accepted standards of medicine.” The board also noted that Brigham “portrays the very extensive injury to A.W. as a slip of the instrument.”
Sources: New Jersey medical board Interim Decision and Order; Administrative Review Board Decision and Order Number ARB No. 94-98 & No. 94-146; State Board for Professional Medical Conduct Statement of Charges; Newark Star-Ledger 1-7-94; Philadelphia Inquirer 12-15-94; Courier-Post 12-22-94; Atlantic City Press 12-15-94 Rockland Journal-News 12-10-94; New York Medical Board Statement of Charges (beginning at the bottom of page 7) and Findings (scroll to bottom of page 36)
Credit: Christina Dunigan
Share on Facebook