Doctor and patient dispute tubal ligation circumstances

A scheduled eight-day civil trial against a doctor accused of assault and battery is underway in Yukon Supreme Court.

A scheduled eight-day civil trial against a doctor accused of assault and battery is underway in Yukon Supreme Court.

Justice Leigh Gower is presiding.

A strict publication ban orders that the identities of the doctor and the plaintiff, a former patient of the doctor, not be revealed.

The 33-year-old plaintiff, who has type 1 diabetes, alleges the doctor performed a tubal ligation on her in 2002 without her consent.

The defence, represented by Nigel Trevethan, alleges the plaintiff did in fact consent to a tubal ligation on three separate occasions.

Trevethan argued in his opening statement Wednesday morning that the plaintiff agreed to a tubal ligation procedure during appointments with her doctor that took place on Oct. 28, Nov. 4 and Dec. 30, 2002.

The tubal ligation was performed following a birth by Caesarean section on Dec. 30, 2002.

Trevethan said the defence will provide an “overwhelming” amount of corroborative evidence to support this argument.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Susan Roothman, argued that consent never took place at any time.

Roothman called her only witness, the plaintiff herself, to the stand on Wednesday.

The plaintiff, who was 27 when the tubal ligation was performed, testified she has always wanted at least three children. Although she already has two healthy offspring, she said that “not being able to have a third one upsets me.“

The plaintiff added that in her cultural background, which is Metis, it is traditional to have large families.

The plaintiff said that while the doctor in question provided good care during his involvement in her first two pregnancies, she said his manner became more “abrupt” when she became pregnant a third time.

Her appointments with him were “mostly very short,“ she testified.

“The feeling I got from him is that I shouldn’t be pregnant.“

It was during her third pregnancy that the doctor first suggested the plaintiff consider a tubal ligation.

The plaintiff testified she had to be medevaced to Vancouver during this pregnancy because she was losing amniotic fluid as well as blood.

The plaintiff explained that this may have been because of physical abuse she sustained from her common-law partner.

She testified she began having contractions while landing in Vancouver.

The newborn passed away within 12 hours after being delivered by C-section, she said.

The plaintiff testified the doctor in Vancouver asked her if she wanted a tubal ligation.

“I did and I didn’t. I didn’t know what it was about,“ she told the court.

The doctor told her he would not perform the procedure unless she was fully informed, she testified.

The plaintiff said that during her fourth pregnancy in late 2002, the doctor now on trial again asked her about the possibility of tubal ligation.

The plaintiff said she told him if she had a healthy baby, she would consider the procedure, but if the baby “didn’t make it” or had health problems, she would not consider it.

It seemed like the doctor “was trying to push me towards it,“ she testified, but she couldn’t make up her mind because she “didn’t know the whole outcome of the pregnancy yet.“

The plaintiff testified she gave birth by C-section on Dec. 30, 2002, and that while she was in the recovery room, following the procedure, she was given several papers to sign.

She signed them, but said her signature on the papers doesn’t look the way it normally should because she was not fully alert at the time.

She testified that the newborn baby died within hours.

The plaintiff also testified she and a nurse discussed the elements of a tubal ligation procedure following the birth. When the plaintiff told the nurse she did not want a tubal ligation, the nurse seemed confused and said the procedure had already been done.

The plaintiff said both she and her partner were angry, that she felt “violated” and that it felt as if someone else was making choices for her.

The plaintiff said a reversal of the procedure would cost $3,500, with no guarantee for success.

During his cross-examination of the plaintiff, Trevethan suggested the plaintiff had agreed to a tubal ligation because other forms of contraception, such as condoms and birth control pills, had not been successful for her.

“I never, ever told any doctor that I was certain I wanted it done,“ the plaintiff said on the stand.

Trevethan also noted in his cross-examination that the documents the plaintiff signed while in the recovery room were dated at 1:23 a.m., although the plaintiff did not have the C-section performed until after 2 a.m.

But the plaintiff said she was “adamant” that she signed the papers after the C-section.

The trial continues.