Good morning faithful readers!! Yesterday Amber had an appointment with Doc Rogers and what we thought was going to be a routine visit ended up being a very helpful chat with her regarding the issue we had with babywaves...the ultrasound where we were lied to about finding a heartbeat of baby B when indeed baby B had passed and the ultrasound tech just didn't want to tell us .... I will add the letter John wrote to the end of this post so you can read all the juicy details... but first, baby A is doing just wonderfully! Amber told me the heart rate of baby A but I can't find where I wrote it down.. :( it was a nice strong number though... She was measuring 20 weeks but the doc said that wasn't to be a shock with her being pregnant with two until 13 weeks and that baby B was probably still taking up some space in there... We didn't have an ultrasound because the techs that are used at their clinic and the same ones that work at babywaves.. I believe it is a contract group and they use the same group for their clinic... soooo... Amber opted NOT to have the ultrasound done and our appointment on the 29th is now being rescheduled at a different location, one that doesn't use that group...
The interesting part about this is Dr Rogers informed us she was not contacted about baby B's demise after the ultrasound at baby waves as the tech, asst manager and manager have all sworn to.. in fact she only found out two weeks ago that it ever happened... which prompted a call, by Dr Rogers, to the babywaves center for a discussion. (best not mess with an OB doc and then lie about it, I'd say) so after Amber's appointment, she gets a call from Dr Rogers herself requesting our letter and a copy of the DVD if possible..
After a few hours of me trying to figure out how to copy this DVD I succeeded!! Yeah me! and the letter and the DVD are in the mail... Dr Rogers also told Amber she was going to talk to the other docs in the group about what happened and maybe, just maybe, some business will be lost .. or better yet, some one's license will be suspended.. forgive me for saying that but it is how I feel...
John is in school right now so Annabelle and I have plenty of time to fill.. we have much to do, going to see the Ruppel fam in Atlanta next weekend and celebrate Caroline's big day !! then going to Kansas to see Amber and fam AND see our baby A!! one day down, 41 days to go! haha...
Much love to all of you! prayers for our soldiers and families...
Carolyn
Here is the letter we sent to many many agencies about babywaves ...
I am writing on a matter of grave concern to me and parents everywhere. On Monday, 9 June 2008, my wife, Carolyn Evans, and our gestational carrier (surrogate), Amber Patterson attended an appointment at Baby Waves, 1861 N. Rock Rd, Suite 200, Wichita, KS 67206 for the purpose of having an ultra-sound for our twins that were (at the time) in their 13th gestational week. As the ultra-sound technician performed the ultra sound she was able to identify both fetuses. She was able to identity the heartbeat of “Baby A” with relative ease, but struggled to find a heartbeat for “Baby B”. My wife and our surrogate were discussing the ultra-sound with the technician and their attention was divided between the screen and the conversation. After several more minutes using the ultra-sound device, the technician typed “Baby B” on the monitor display screen and indicated the heartbeat pattern for Baby B. Both my wife and our surrogate breathed a sigh of relief and after the ultra-sound was complete, my wife paid the bill and they left.
Upon her return from the trip to Wichita that night, my wife played the ultra-sound DVD for me in our home. I will admit that I am a lay person when it comes to the intricacies of reading sonograms and ultra-sounds, but we could both clearly see the distinct embryonic sacs of our twins on the ultra-sound, and indeed could clearly see and identify distinctive features of each fetus. When the ultra-sound got to the point where the technician was recording and indicating heartbeats, we could both see the heart beating on Baby A, and the rhythm pattern at the bottom of the screen showed a strong natural rhythm. When the ultra-sound technician moved to Baby B’s sac, we could identify no visual heartbeat, and she had trouble establishing the same clear rhythm pattern as Baby A. My wife and I were aghast at what occurred next. After several failed attempts to find Baby B’s heartbeat, the ultra-sound technician moved her monitoring device BACK to Baby A, then typed “Baby B” on the screen and indicated to my wife and our surrogate that she had successfully located Baby B’s heartbeat. We watched this several times to ensure we had interpreted the technician’s actions correctly, but we made no mistake. She intentionally misled my wife and our surrogate into thinking she had detected the heartbeat of Baby B and used the ultra-sound to perpetrate this deception.
I was confident that this was the action of a maverick technician and not keeping with the standards of the sonography profession or Baby Waves. So I dutifully called on 12 June, 2008 to discuss the matter with the Baby Waves manager, Shawn (or Sean) Gardner. I was told by the receptionist that Ms. Gardner was out of town so I asked to speak to the Assistant Manager, Cindy Adams. As I discussed the incident with Ms. Adams she amazed me when she jumped to the defense of the ultra-sound technician demonstrating full knowledge of the deception. She informed me that the technician called the doctor AFTER my wife and our surrogate left and told the doctor of Baby B’s demise. When I questioned the ethics of this practice of fabricating a heartbeat, Ms. Adams informed me that their technicians were not physicians and could therefore not “make diagnoses”. When I told her that “standing mute” would have been preferable to the complete lie and deception perpetrated upon a hopeful mother and caring surrogate, she told me that, “we’re not going to change it so there is nothing we can do now”.
This entire episode is troubling on many levels, but allow me to outline the most distressing facts:
1) The ultra-sound technician committed at most a fraudulent act in KNOWINGLY lying to her clients, and at least willful misrepresentation of what she knew to be true. I appreciate her reluctance to deliver bad news, but creating an outright lie is detestable.
2) Certainly persons in the ultra-sound industry have rules governing what they may and may not disclose to their clients based on their level of training and certification, and I am equally certain that they are sensitive to legal liability in such cases. All of this notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that the ARDMS or any other certifying agency condones this kind of fabrication. Furthermore, an agency that may have certified the technician in question should move quickly to rectify this situation, remove her certification and maintain a high professional standard.
3) The fact that the Assistant Manager of an ultra-sound company would condone such blatant misrepresentation of the facts is perhaps the most egregious of all offenses in this matter. As a military officer I find it reprehensible that Baby Waves is willing to lie to its clients in order to avoid the unpleasantness of the truth and ensure they steer clear of legal liability.
My wife and I have no interest in seeking a fiscal solution to this matter. We were both devastated to learn the day AFTER our Baby Waves ultra-sound that Baby B had perished sometime in the preceding week. As hard as it was for us, it was equally difficult for our surrogate who holds herself responsible for the safety of our unborn children (despite the fact that she could not have avoided this outcome regardless of her efforts). Our sole intent in writing this letter is to ensure that the American Medical Association is aware of this practice by at least one ultra-sound company, to ensure that the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers (ARDMS) realizes that Baby Waves of Wichita, KS condones (as verified by their Assistant Manager, Cindy Adams) such deceptive practices, and to ensure that perspective clients are aware of this practice.
Copies of this letter are provided to the AMA, ARDMS and the Wichita, KS Better Business Bureau. Additional copies may be provided upon request to other governing or regulating agencies within the healthcare, insurance or sonography industry. Thank you for your time in this matter. The courtesy of a reply is requested.
Most sincerely,
