A mother who sent a scathing e-mail to a pre-natal class group insinuating that she was forced to have a Caesarian section by her obstetrician, was forced to pay him €1,000 in libel damages.
It all began eight years ago when Rebecca Zarb Gauci Maestre delivered “an apparently healthy female” through induced Caesarean section after a 36-week pregnancy, at a private hospital and upon the advice of her doctor, George Buttigieg - a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist since 1992.
Almost a month after the birth, the mother turned up at Mater Dei Hospital claiming that her daughter had difficulty breathing while feeding, being told by ‘unidentified persons’ that this was probably due to the fact that the child had been delivered pre-term.
A couple of months later, the mother sent an e-mail to ‘Parentcraft at MDH’, where she had attended pre-natal classes, alleging that she had “been lied to in a horrible way” by her doctor who had “forced” her into surgery, thereby experiencing “a rather traumatic c-section.”
“We put our trust and lives in the hands of doctors, and pay them huge amounts of money for that privilege. No mother deserves to be treated like a lump of meat or a cash cow!” the e-mail read, without mentioning her doctor by name.
However, the e-mail was soon brought to Mr Buttigieg’s attention - after making the rounds in hospital - prompting him to face his former patient who explained that she had not meant her e-mail to be shared and besides, she had never mentioned his name.
A year later, the specialist received a letter from the woman’s lawyer claiming damages for unprofessional shortcomings and negligence on his part.
The doctor filed libel proceedings against the mother who countered that her e-mail had not been intended for circulation, that she had not named the specialist concerned and that her allegations amounted to “fair comment”.
However, on the basis of all evidence put forward, the court, presided over by magistrate Francesco Depasquale, concluded that the e-mail had stated facts which had not been proved, supported solely by “medical suppositions” and non-professional conclusions by family relatives.
Indeed, hospital documents proved that the mother had delivered a healthy baby and that her doctor had advised an early delivery since he had been preoccupied about the child’s safety.
Declaring the e-mail as defamatory, the court observed that an electronic message could easily be shared and that the sender had no means to stop this. Consequently, “one should use such means of communication with far greater caution since they might easily land the sender in some unforeseen controversy”, the court warned.
In view of the long-drawn out nature of the case, mostly owing to adjournment requests by the applicant - who also failed to indicate the monetary damages actually suffered as a result of the e-mail - the court ordered the respondent to pay €1,000 in damages.