Former Gosnell Employee Sherry West Sentenced


Sherry West is the latest former employee of Kermit Gosnell to be sentenced for her role in crimes that took place inside Gosnell’s “house of horrors” clinic in West Philadelphia. She was sentenced to five to ten years.

West had known Gosnell for 35 years when she was hired as a medical assistant in 2008.

“[West] had no training or certificate that would qualify her to do ultrasound examinations, administer anesthesia, monitor patients in the recovery room, or do any of the other duties that she performed,” according to the 2011 grand jury report. She was accused of administering some of the “unmonitored, unrecorded intravenous injections of Demerol” to 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, the mother of three who died during the procedure.

West pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and other charges, admitting that she administered some of the overdose of Demerol that killed Mongar. She also admitted to participating in a cover-up by lying about what happened and destroying files.

The grand jury concluded that West was not only “unlicensed and qualified” to administer drugs and to perform other medical duties, “but sloppy and unconcerned as well.”

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Tara Murtha on Twitter: @taramurtha

To schedule an interview with Tara Murtha please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • R0chambeau

    But regulations for abortion facilities are a bad thing.

    • cjvg

      There are already regulations aplenty and obviously they work since this guy and the staff where convicted and send to prison.

      Please do try to use some logic, if there where no regulations what did he get shutdown and convicted on?!

      Next question?!

      • R0chambeau

        Are you an anti vaxer?

        • cjvg

          Relevant how?

          • R0chambeau

            It isn’t. I just like letting the world know how dumb you are.

          • cjvg

            Since I am not I guess this merely exposes your lack of reading comprehension and petty attempts at trying to pass off inane and irrelevant personal attacks as arguments!

            I merely believe that everyone has the right to bodily sanctity even if I do not like their personal choices.
            That is what people call consistency and integrity, something you are displaying very little off

          • R0chambeau

            You might want to read your own comments.

            http://rhrealitycheck . org/article/2014/03/06/parents-distrust-vaccines-may-even-harder-counter-thought/

            You are an anti-vaccine nut .

          • Shan

            True or not, still irrelevant.

          • cjvg

            I clearly and explain why there is a reasonable argument to be made to be skeptical of the FDA and CDC rubberstamping vaccine aplications and that there are reasonable safety questions in that regard. I

            In the same thread I state;” Most members of the medical community believes that the risk of serious injury or death from vaccine preventable diseases is greater than the risk of injury or death which can be caused by a vaccine. However, recognition of and concern about the risks of vaccine preventable diseases does not diminish our need and responsibility to acknowledge the need to minimize vaccine risks.”

            And;”The challenge today is for parents, physicians, scientists, manufacturers and health officials to recognize the risks of both the disease and the vaccine and work to protect the health and well being of every child.”

            As well as;”Currently there is a gap in medical knowledge in terms of doctors being able to predict who will have an adverse reaction to vaccination, and who will not.”

            And then the concluding argument of that;”Considering all these things, it is clearly unethical to deny a patient the right to consent to a treatment for which they would suffer the consequences.
            No one should be mandated to undergo medical treatment for the benefit of another, regardless of how much you or I or anyone else believes it is beneficial!”

            Out of all that you conclude that I’m against vaccination, regardless of the fact that I clearly acknowledge that it has benefits?

            My whole argument is against overriding the patients consent but you are to dishonest to acknowledge that!

            Turns out that YOU might want to learn to read and take some comprehension classes. Some ethics and morality as well as honest debating would not hurt either. It is very clear what you are and LIAR jumps out every time you open your mouth!

          • Shan

            I understand your argument for bodily autonomy here and comparing it to the abortion discussion but I still have a problem with the fact that anti-vaxxers put others in the general public at risk – children, the elderly, the immuno-compromised – with their individual decisions whereas abortion doesn’t.

          • cjvg

            Actually that argument can not be sustained when looking at the facts of vaccination in this country.

            Vaccines do not confer lifelong immunity like actually having the disease does. Most vaccines have only a 60% effective rate at best, they are also not effective for life, most range from 5 to 10 at the outside 20 year immune protection.

            Most adults that have reached the age of 40 in any first world country (including the US) where vaccinated for childhood diseases in their youth. These are the same adults that are no longer protected by any vaccine they received in their youth. So unless these adults actually had a booster shot they are the ones who are much more likely to be a disease vector then the piddly 2% of children that are completely unvaccinated or the additional 3% that are partially vaccinated!

            Actually I made this exact same argument on the vaccine story and will reprint it here for you

            Every single research ever done on vaccine efficacy shows that at best only 60%of those inoculated will form anti bodies (that is the protective component) and at the very very best this will only last 20 years. More common are the efficacy rates of 30-54% and 5 to 10 years! So unless they actually had the disease (those anti-bodies last a life time) they are the largest disease vector we have in the US population!

            Very few adults take booster shots for most common child hood diseases so a much larger part of the adult population is unvaccinated and unprotected then the percentage of children that are unvaccinated!

            Interesting to know is that obstetricians have the lowest rate of current vaccinations (!) of almost all medical doctors, and the highest rate of direct exposure to newborns, young children and their expectant mothers!!

            Obviously the accusation that the 5% of children unvaccinated or partially vaccinate damage herd immunity is very misleading when we gleefully ignore the enormous number of adults who are not protected

            (2010 CDC reports 95 percent of US children receive all their recommended vaccinations or would get them all)http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/de…
            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pa
            http://www.cdc.gov/media/trans
            http://pediatrics.aappublicati

            according to the 2010 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics;.

            About 95 percent of parents said their kids had received all the vaccinations or would get them all, which was a record high, a 2010 survey . But about 5 percent of parents said they would decline some vaccines, and 2 percent said their little ones would receive no vaccines, the researchers said.

            “We are reassured that, overall, parents are vaccinating their kids according to the recommended schedule,” said lead researcher Allison Kennedy, an epidemiologist in CDC’s Immunization Services Division.

            “But we did find that most parents do have questions or concerns about vaccines,” she said

            Obviously there is not nearly enough non vaccinators to breach herd immunity since only a mere 2% do not vaccinate. The real issue is the adults who have no protection but nary a peep about that!

            Also herd immunity is slightly different for each disease but the commonly accepted numbers for herd immunity threshold for pertussis is 92-94%, whereas for diphtheria it is 85%. This is far below the current vaccination rates which are 95% inoculation on schedule!

            For some diseases, immunity thresholds are as low as 50%, especially when combined with good hygiene. In other instances, up to 90% of the population may need to be vaccinated to create the desired protection. It is also extremely important to receive regular boosters, as some vaccines lose their efficacy over time, leaving people vulnerable to an outbreak.

            Obviously herd immunity is a red herring where child hood vaccination levels are concerned and used dishonestly or we would be seriously considering the need for adults having a vaccine mandate!

          • Shan

            “Vaccines do not confer lifelong immunity like actually having the disease does.”

            If vaccines did confer lifelong immunity, and it could be proven that there was no danger whatsover to the recipients, what would you say about mandated vaccinations?

          • cjvg

            I would still defend the bodily autonomy of every person. I can not in good conscience argue that the body of others can and must be violated against their explicit whishes for my benefit or those of others.

            We must do better in educating and actually building an ethical and moral health care system in this county. A system people can trust, a system that stands for the people and their health and is not so incestuously intertwined with profit and big pharma!

          • Arekushieru

            Yup. But so many people that are otherwise very rational about these kinds of subjects will defend their position that anyone who does not get their child vaccinated, even without their consent, is an ‘anti-vaxxer nut’.

          • cjvg

            Deliberate scare tactics from big pharma and their bought mouth piece the CDC/FDA on what most people fear most (the death/injury of their child) is what causes those knee jerk reactions I believe!
            How misleading and dishonest most of these arguments are become very clear when you actually work in research and are willing to apply logic and reason.
            Herd immunity is their biggest argument because they believe it will (and it does) pressure parents into falling inline so as not to be ostracized by others
            However herd immunity can not be used with integrity and honesty as long as the CDC and the vaccine producers willingly and deliberately ignore that people over 40 are the largest unprotected group in our society.
            Also our children still stand at 95% full vaccination rate with an additional 3% partial vaccination rate. In contrast even our most virulent child hood diseases have at the very best a 90% threshold (most are 85-50%)so herd immunity is still at least 5 %
            over the threshold
            As long as the authorities are not honest and are willing to place profit above health of the populace there justifiably will be people who are not going to entrust their children’s health to their opinion. Most of these people already have one child that was injured by vaccine side effects or are highly educated and/or work in the health field

          • Cactus

            And this is where the derailment happened.

          • cjvg

            ?.

          • Cactus

            R0chambeau was trying to derail the conversation from something important (clinic regulations), where he knew he didn’t have a chance of winning, see Shan’s point below; to something unimportant (your beliefs about vaccines), where he thought he could “win” by turning those of us who are pro-vaccination against you after looking at your commenting history. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter: I can disagree with you on vaccines but agree with you on abortion. But R0 is a pretty dickish little troll for bringing that in.

          • L-dan

            Which has what to do with the topic of this article?

            I mean, it’s a given that you’re just trolling anyway, but at least *try* to stick to the topic rather than dragging in a discussion you weren’t even party to.

          • Cactus

            And this is where the derailment ended.

          • Ella Warnock

            I think you like letting everyone here know how dumb you are. You just keep turning up like a bad penny to remind us, don’t you? As if we could ever forget . . .

          • King Rat

            Getting a wisdom tooth removed is more dangerous than abortion. I hope that you want to apply the same restrictions to dental offices.

    • Shan

      No, they’re not. But unnecessary regulations designed solely to shut down any and all abortion facilities are. It’s unenforced and totally ignored regulations that are the bad thing.

      Gosnell’s clinic operated within an already heavily regulated jurisdiction but hadn’t been inspected since 1993, despite numerous citations, complaints from patients, their lawyers, ex-employees, other doctors, health department representatives, women’s healthcare and pro-choice advocates, all ignored. He operated illegally for decades because nobody cared to enforce the existing laws. Officials didn’t bother to investigate until complaints about an illegal pill-mill surfaced and the FBI raided the place and uncovered the horror show going on there.

      As the Grand Jury indictment pointed out: “Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that. But we
      think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is
      because the women in question were poor and of color, because the
      victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the
      political subject of abortion.”

      Here’s a very thorough article about it on Medscape:

      http://www. medscape. com /viewarticle/736481#1