Comments on: What happened to Fauzia from admission till her death?

By: @RehanJaleel

@RehanJaleel — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:01:47 +0000

In my opinion sudden death of such a renowned politician due to alleged negligence of some of the leading doctors of Pakistan again raise many doubts on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Private Hospitals of Pakistan. In my opinion there is some inherent conflict between maximizing profits and saving lives of patients. It is a high time that people at the helm of affairs should come forward and strengthen the regulatory mechanism for the hospital sector so that a socially and ethically responsible hospital sector can be established

By: wasim

wasim — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:38:01 +0000

I think sudden death of such a renowned politican in a private hospital due to alleged negligence of some of the best doctors of Pakistan raise lot of questions and doubts on the effectiveness of working of hospital sector of Pakistan. I think it is the high time that Federal and Provincial Govt, should take immediate measures to strengthen the regulatory framework of the hospitals and make them more responsible

By: Amin Mohammad

Amin Mohammad — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:19:52 +0000

Dear All,
having read the comments, I see there is an active debate going on. Yes, Madam Fauzia was given the best care by the hospital and all the consultants after the mess up that had been created. for 38 hours she was internally bleeding. The surgeon, Badar Siddiqi screwed up big time and used fistula and all that adhesion related stuff as a fall back!!! You can do all sort of patch work, but patch works do not work in a human body. Off course, everyone has his/her time, but one has to see the practices in place. Dont you think she was capable of going abroad? But she did believe in the services of the hospitals and doctors. She was sadly mistaken!
The criminal negligence is in the first 38 hours. After that it is all good work. But that good work couldnt save her life.

By: AMIR

AMIR — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:40:13 +0000

YOU WOULD BE MISSED.

By: Dr U.Mansoor (UK)

Dr U.Mansoor (UK) — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:39:48 +0000

What an immature comment from Maher. Like mentioned earlier these are possible surgical complications. We can only try, well being is in Allah's hand. RIP

By: Zero

Zero — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:12:49 +0000

I don't think an autopsy was done on her. Was it?

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:37:59 +0000

Part 4:
Mistake #4: Why choose OMI for surgery and not say AKU hospital? Private clinics are notorious for profiteering. Their specialists work at a number of other clinics, are in a hurry to handle as many patients as available and don’t give time for adequate patient care. It is apparent that OMI specialists are also trying to hide their inappropriate patient management by frequently citing that they obtained Fauzia’s loved ones consent.

In my opinion, the laparoscopic surgeon (Dr. Badar Siddiqi?) initiated the sequence of events, compounded by poor infection control (Pseudomonas) and multiple surgeries that ultimately lead to Fauzia’s death.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:37:07 +0000

Part 3:
Mistake #2: Multiple surgeries and other extensive manipulations, when the patient is already bleeding, are a big no-no until the patient has stabilized.
Heavy loss of blood in Fauzia due to injury to blood vessels in porta hepatis affected the liver function. Liver, for example, makes chemicals that clot the blood and defense molecules (‘antibodies’) that protect from infection; it also removes toxins from blood.

Mistake #3: The OMI appears to have a very poor infection cognizance and control in place. This is evident from the fact that no doctor/nursing precautions existed or Fauzia wouldn’t have developed Pseudomonal infection and that Infection specialist was called in almost 2 weeks after Pseudomonas was discovered in respiratory secretions.
Pseudomonal infection might have come from the urinary catheter that Fauzia was fitted with or poor ventilator maintenance. Regardless of the source, Pseudomonal infection is by itself sufficient to cause kidney failure, as evident from Fauzia’s raised chemicals that indicate this failure; and brain death as evident from MRI results.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:35:26 +0000

Part 2:
Mistake #1: Based on previous ultrasound findings (presence of adhesions, etc.), the laparoscopic surgeon (IF he read the report) should have known that Fauzia must not undergo removal of gall bladder by laparoscope but by open surgery.
I believe the surgeon either did not close the hole in the intestine properly or punctured it at another place. This caused dangerous inflammation of the membrane (‘peritonitis’) that covers the intestines, as was evident by Fauzia’s tense abdomen. Also, either the drain that he placed or he himself may have injured (‘iatrogenic’) the blood vessels, which lie very close to gall bladder, on the under surface of liver (in the ‘porta hepatis’); hence free fluid and blood in Fauzia’s abdomen.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:30:27 +0000

Part 1:
I was shocked by such a tragic departure of a vibrant and committed Fauzia Wahab. This moved me to try to explain in lay terms as to what I think may have happened here:

Pseudomonas bacteria that were present in Fauzia's respiratory secretions are so-called opportunistic bacteria that can cause life-threatening infections in patients whose defense mechanisms have become quite weak ('immunocompromised'); they don't make healthy people sick. In all cases, these bacteria are acquired by patients in a hospital setting (‘nosocomial’). Hospital environment makes these bacteria strong and resistant to antibiotics. The cell walls of Pseudomonas (and other similar bacteria called 'Gram-negative' bacteria) contain a toxin (‘endotoxin’), which is released, when these bacteria die. So, while antibiotics that are used in Pseudomonal infections kill the bacteria, they don’t do anything to the toxins. The effects of these toxins, if not properly managed, may be fatal.