4 min read
Childbirth Painless Childbirth Deception Forceps Newborn Cheek Injury Over-Treatment Lack of Informed Consent Outcome Misrepresentation Financial Exploitation Diagnostic Inaccuracy Communication Breakdown Procedural ComplicationsPainless delivery led to prolonged labor, resulting in the use of forceps for assisted birth. The forceps caused injury to the newborn's cheek.
The baby girl was left with a scar longer than 3 cm on her cheek.
The claim of prolonged second stage of labor was not accurate. Under epidural analgesia, the accepted upper limit for the second stage is three hours. Without painless delivery, labor would likely have progressed more quickly, substantially reducing the need for forceps and therefore the risk of facial injury to the newborn. It is well established in obstetrics that epidural analgesia can prolong labor. This intervention disrupts the natural coordination between mother and fetus, creating a potentially hazardous situation. Obstetricians themselves typically avoid painless delivery when giving birth. When the second stage reached two hours, the medical team recommended cesarean delivery. The patient declined, leading the team to proceed with forceps assistance. At two hours in the second stage under epidural analgesia, the situation was still within normal limits, and the patient had a reasonable chance of achieving a spontaneous vaginal delivery. The forceps record cited prolonged second stage as the indication. This justification does not hold, as the upper limit under epidural analgesia is three hours, not two. Epidural analgesia objectively increases the likelihood of cesarean delivery. Compared with spontaneous vaginal birth, cesarean sections significantly enhance medical revenue streams.
Contacting this service early in pregnancy would have allowed for advance planning to address potential issues during delivery. For example, when the cesarean recommendation was made, the team could have been reminded that the second stage had not yet reached three hours. Most importantly, declining painless delivery would have allowed labor to progress at a more natural pace. This single decision would likely have prevented the entire sequence of complications and left both mother and baby unharmed.
We are not physicians operating a clinic. We hold no active medical licenses and have no authority to diagnose conditions, prescribe medications, administer treatments, or deliver personalized medical advice. Nothing published on this site, in any associated materials, or in direct communications from us should be interpreted as medical advice. If you are currently experiencing symptoms or health concerns, seek professional care at a hospital or from a licensed physician without delay.
All content we present may contain inaccuracies or oversights. We are human, and while we work diligently to maintain accuracy, errors can and do occur. Although members of our team have completed medical school, we do not engage in clinical practice. Our approach is grounded in the principle of free speech: we believe we have the right to discuss real treatment cases openly and transparently.
This matters profoundly. For the first time, ordinary people can access unfiltered accounts directly from patients describing what treatments succeeded or failed — without a physician standing between the patient and the audience to frame, narrate, or interpret every detail. It is the difference between letting individuals speak for themselves and always requiring someone else to speak on their behalf or remain present to "explain" their words. Allowing patients to share their own medical records represents a genuinely new form of transparency. The limitation, of course, is that patients are not trained medical writers; their raw stories can sometimes appear disorganized or invite criticism. Our limited role is simply to help organize and present that information clearly, without injecting clinical judgment or altering the underlying facts.
Today, only licensed doctors and medical institutions are generally permitted to publish, narrate, comment on, or pass judgment on treatment cases. This creates an exclusive system in which only insiders control the narrative. It is comparable to insisting that only the restaurant owner may publicly discuss the quality of their own establishment — while simultaneously allowing only a professional "restaurant guild" to review any restaurant at all. Patients and their families are effectively sidelined from the conversation about their own experiences.
That is how the current system operates. We are here to change it.