Amniotic Fluid Embolism and the Negligence of the Physician
On 5th January 2015, the dead D was diagnosed with the mild Gestational hypertension and took an emergency cesarean birth at 6 p.m. on 9th January after an unsuccessful augmentation by the physician on 7th. During that the physician E went out at about 20:50 on 9th, the patient D complained of pain and the midwife couldn ease the syndrome by the medicine the physician E gave. Meanwhile, the amount of patient D urine didn increase. After coming back at about 23:00, the physician E cleaned the clots in D uterus and vaginal. D shock index had already been 1.3 at the same time. About 00:30 on 10th, the E judged that D still had the blood tendency and decided to transfer D to other hospitals. D died during the transferring. The plaintiff A is D husband and the plaintiff B is D son. Both of them accused E of the negligence of treatments, and C, the representer of the clinic, of joint compensation. Tokyo District Court asserts that, concerning to the duty of surveillance, the treatments to the amniotic fluid embolism and the duty of transferring, E didn notice D shock index, nor monitor the amount of urine. Consequently, E couldn comfirm as fast as he could whether the blooding had been stopped and the transferring was delayed. Besides, it was hard to negate that D died on the ground of the amniotic fluid embolism according to the amount of the blooding, the amount of the thrombocytes and the examination of serum, even though there was no anatomy after D?death. The survivability of the amniotic fluid embolism would recently be enhanced with giving the first aid properly. Therefore, it would be causally related to D?death that E didn fulfill the duty of care.