Order a Menopause Test Kit Today, Test for Menopause Before Your Next Doctors Visit

NOTICE: This forum is now archived and in place for reference only.
All NEW postings are now located and only accepted at the CPTwomen members Forum.
Click Here to obtain a Login Name and Password to access the Members Posting Forum.

Already a member? Click Here to Login to the Members Site

Edited Post - See Here, and why.

Attention: - This post has been edited and re-posted. The only change has been to removed some names.

It is not our habit of censoring posts, and will try to explain our reasons here for doing so.

The information that was posted is public record, and the Coalition for Post Tubal Women and Susan Bucher would have been within their rights to keep the post in place but decided to edit for reasons which are already posted within tubal.org.

The CPTwomen's goals are to inform and to create change. Women and visitors who come to this site are not really concerned as to who Susan is suing, but more concerned about their own health. The general introduction is, "I was never informed by my doctor", "my health greatly changed after the TL", and "My doctor now refuses to help me or hormone test me..."

It doesn't matter who the doctor or the hospital is because what happened and what is happening to masses of women regarding the issues of misinformation, withholding information, cover-ups, non-disclosure of known risks, and the overall public denial by our women's health care providers that tubal ligations do have side effects is happening to hundreds of thousands of women yearly by many doctors, surgical centers, organizations, hospitals, and so on. It doesn't really matter who they are... The issue here is that it's happening and many women are injured, affected, and suffer greatly by their actions.

The following is the edited postings
_____________________________________

Bucher v **********
by Cate

Civil Case filed in the Central District Court, Los Angeles, CA 7/21/99

Plaintiff: Susan J Bucher
Defendants: ****** and ******** Hospital.

Is this the civil case for which you are soliciting financial support?

Donations are to be directed to the CPTwomen Legal Defense Fund. Clearly the
above citation shows that you are the PLAINTIFF.

Can you please explain the
apparent discrepancy? Are you a defendant or a plaintiff? Or should the name
be CPTwomen Legal Plaintiff Fund?

When a monetary solicitation is made, ethics (if not the law, in the case of
a 501 fund) demands full disclosure. Is not the premise of your lawsuit
and your cause in general "informed consent"?

You are not obliged to
inform the public, so that donations are given with "informed consent" of
the donor?

What is the basis of charges in your lawsuit against ******* and
the ************** Hospital? How will this lawsuit benefit all post-tubal
women, if, in fact, this is the lawsuit at issue? How will this lawsuit
promulgate informed consent?

Answers elucidating the facts of and the mission presumed in the lawsuit
will be appreciated.

In Response
by Sandy

Sounds as though you represent the defendant in this case, no? I think Susan's intentions are in the right place, even if her fundrasing efforts fall short of standard protocol. Tell us, what is your perspective of the effect the outcome of this case will have? Are you concerned that it may set legal precedent? Your post hardly reflects the rational queries of an objective bystander. Bias and prejudice more accurately describe your post. You know, some times we must give up trying to fix the wobbely door and walk through it instead to see what lies ahead. For us, who have altered our bodies, and hence our lives, based on false and misleading information, we ask that you keep an open mind and provide contructive criticism, not hostile remarks. You may not agree with all our issues but certainly you can not fault the basic argument that consumers have a right to accurate and objective medical information before opting for surgical or medical treatment. Good luck and Good health to you, and may you never make a decision based upon someone else's profit margin.

Vituperative Claptrap Avails Nothing
by Cate

SANDY: Sounds as though you represent the defendant in this case, no?

RESPONSE: Absolutely not. I do not know the defendant, know anyone who does know the defendant. I do not give one wit about the defendant. I have no knowledge about the case, which is precisely why I asked questions. Your presumption is groundless.

SANDY: I think Susan's intentions are in the right place, even if her fundrasing efforts fall short of standard protocol.

RESPONSE: $15,000 is a major fundraising effort on behalf of one person. I would expect ethical protocols implemented, expect fiscal disclosure. This protects Susan firstly, the donor secondly. Good intentions are simply a straw man to avoiding accountability.

SANDY:Tell us, what is your perspective of the effect the outcome of this case will have? Are you concerned that it may set legal precedent?

RESPONSE: Clearly you did not read my posts with understanding. I have no perspective whatsoever on the outcome of a case about which I know nothing. No, I am not concerned it may set legal precedent. (This question reflects your erroneous initial presumption that I have interest in the defendant; I do not. Therefore the question is moot.)

SANDY: Your post hardly reflects the rational queries of an objective bystander. Bias and prejudice more accurately describe your post.

RESPONSE: Vague unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks obfuscates the real issue: WHAT IS THE CASE? Why are you so afraid to provide information beyond the fact there is a case.? What bias and prejudice?

Is this a class action suit -or- a personal civil case?
What is the claim against the defendant?
What is the penalty asked?
What is the expected outcome for post-tubal women?

I asked those questions before. You have answered not one, but rather reasked me the questions I initially asked. I must assume, then, you do not know the facts of Susan's lawsuit? Labeling posters with little more than wild speculation elucidates nothing on the critical issues addressed at this site.

SANDY: You know, some times we must give up trying to fix the wobbely door and walk through it instead to see what lies ahead.

RESPONSE: I am one who attempts to become fully educated on the facts before proceeding with action. It is called 'informed consent' to that action. Sadly, I have learned nothing from the ad hominem response that helps me understand the focus of Susan's lawsuit.

SANDY: For us, who have altered our bodies, and hence our lives, based on false and misleading information, we ask that you keep an open mind and provide contructive criticism, not hostile remarks.

RESPONSE: I have made no remarks whatsoever about "For us, who have altered our bodies, and hence our lives, based on false and misleading information". This strawman serves only draw attention away from the fact that legitimate questions go unanswered. Again, I have simply asked for information about a lawsuit, one which all readers of the forum are asked to financially support. Certainly for a just cause, answers should be readily forthcoming.

SANDY: You may not agree with all our issues but certainly you can not fault the basic argument that consumers have a right to accurate and objective medical information before opting for surgical or medical treatment.

RESPONSE: Referencing the front page of tubal.org and the plea to support a lawsuit, I cannot agree with or disagree with an issue so vaguely communicated. Vituperative claptrap avails nothing in illuminating the mission of this lawsuit.

In fact, I do support the consumers' right to accurate and objective information before engaging medical options.

I also support the right to accurate and complete information before championing a lawsuit. Sandy, will you choose to join me in exegetical efforts, or choose to remain mired in evasion and obfuscation?

Posted on Jul 28, 2000, 12:13 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum HomeResponses

Response to Cate. Sandy on Jul 28, 2000

Take the Tubal Ligation I.Q. Test Are you outraged? Feel as though you and other women were not (are not) being informed? Think that a class action lawsuit should be filed on behalf of post tubal women because information was and still is being withheld by the ACOG! The CPTwomen invites all reading this forum to join the CPTwomen and communicate with us at the members' forum. All posting here and conversation here has been moved to the members' forum.

CPTwomen members have testified in front of the IL and CA Court, the IL Gov. Task Force, the Sunset Review Committee, (Senator Liz Figueroa), NOW, and more. What occurred has been made a matter of public record. The CPTwomen are making public the issues which millions of other women have faced in silence. Issues such as women are not informed at the time of their tubal ligation that there is a risk of hormonal imbalance occurring. For the CPTwomen to continue its mission to move this issue to the forefront of government, we must ask for a small contribution/subscription fee from all those who wish to communicate with us and participate at the Coalition's Bulletin Board

Coalition for Post Tubal Women
Archived Public Forum