Doctor sued for providing Dilaudid to 17-year-old
September 1, 2000 2 minutes read
Doctor sued for providing Dilaudid to 17-year-old
Trial set for 2001
A Seattle physician faces a malpractice suit in which he is accused of providing a powerful narcotic to a 17-year-old girl without her parents’ knowledge, leading to a serious addiction.
Seattle attorney D. Michael Tomkins says the young woman was addicted to Dilaudid while under the doctor’s care. Tomkins alleges that the then 17-year-old was not monitored, nor were her parents informed of this unusual treatment, which was provided without a diagnosis.
When Paul Mayeda, MD, finally discontinued the Dilaudid, the lawsuit further alleges, Amber Sperline turned to street drugs to feed her habit. Because of her life on the street, she was infected with hepatitis C and became pregnant.
It started in 1996
The woman went through an intense detoxification program and gave her baby up for adoption. This case is tentatively scheduled to begin June 4, 2001, in King County Superior Court. Defendants in the case are Mayeda and the Lakeshore Clinic. Phone calls seeking comment from both defendants were not returned.
"In the fall of 1996, Amber Sperline, a 17- year-old girl, came to her family physician, Dr. Mayeda, complaining of depression, stomach cramps, and extreme back pain," Tomkins says. "Ms. Sperline had been a patient of Dr. Mayeda’s since she was 6 years old. Dr. Mayeda admitted her to Evergreen Hospital with the unusual treatment of IV Dilaudid for the four days she was hospitalized."
More questions raised
The attorney says Mayeda made no notes to indicate why he took this drastic step of treatment for a young woman, and there was no diagnosis for the cause of her pain. He also says Mayeda failed to get parental consent in spite of a written note from a nurse reminding him that he was required to do so.
"IV Dilaudid in the dosage administered to Ms. Sperline is usually used in end-stage cancer treatment for patients, not for new patients with no diagnosis," Tomkins says. "After discharge from the hospital, Mayeda continued to provide Ms. Sperline with Dilaudid for eight months, still without parental consent or any diagnosis."
An informed consent discussion with parents or guardians is considered fundamental to good patient care, especially when using a narcotic as strong as Dilaudid, the attorney says. The Sperlines were never informed of the treatment proposed, its risks or benefits, nor were they informed of alternative treatments and their risks and benefits, he says. Tomkins questions whether the woman’s addiction to street heroin was prompted when another physician refused to continue refilling the Dilaudid.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content