Description
The Claimant's mother had been admitted to hospital for the induction of labour to start the delivery of the Claimant. The midwife gave a dose of Prostin to stimulate natural contractions but administered a second dose seven and a half hours later. The Claimant's mother experienced substantial discomfort five hours after the second dose and the Claimant was delivered by forceps in the operating theatre. The Claimant's mother's uterus ruptured and she suffered from a cardiac arrest and died a few days later. The Claimant was asphyxiated at birth and developed microcephaly and cerebral palsy. The Defendant admitted that the mother's death was due to negligent post-natal care and the Claimant's condition was due to the second dose of Prostin. The Defendant denied that the second administration was negligent.
It was held inevitable that there would be a considerable measure of judgment based in any decision to administer, depending on the mother's history and measurements. The fact that the administration of the second dose turned out to be catastrophic was irrelevant. When the midwife had administered the dose she would have known that the risk of rupture was very low and she was entitled to act accordingly. The level of the risk had to be seen as part of the reasoning to administer and leaned towards the conclusion that the midwife's actions were not unreasonable. The claim failed.
