Hypothetical:
Your child is born with a disease or condition that, while not fatal, is difficult to manage and requires almost constant medical care. The condition was noticed and discussed at a 22-gestational-week ultrasound. At some point in your young child's life, you learn that said condition could have been caught at an earlier ultrasound--one within the time frame for termination of pregnancy. Ok, call it what it is: abortion. At any rate. You learn, after perusing your medical records, that there were markers at week 15 that should have been spotted and were never mentioned.
Because your child's condition is so hard on the family, and is breaking you financially, you decide, upon learning this information, to sue for "wrongful birth". In other words, you sue your obstetrician for not advising you to abort your child. This is not recognized in all states but it is in yours. Your obstetrician is your best friend and the child's godmother.
To win the lawsuit you'll have to prove (by lying) that your life would be better off without your sick child.
Discuss.
Hm. I don't know. I choose not to have any testing done because the answers don't matter to me, and its just more bills :P
ReplyDeleteRight, but whether or not you were tested doesn't matter. (And I do believe you get 22 week ultrasounds to find out the sex, right? That's what this was, and the condition happened to be noticeable.)
ReplyDeleteSo AFTER THE FACT this person is saying (but not really) "Had I known EARLIER, when I still could have aborted, I would."
This is a tough one. I would not have aborted any of my children for any reason - however, I do believe that if something is noticed by the doctor at any ultrasound or through any test, it is their duty and obligation to let you know. After all, that is their job and it is your child. It may be a reason for a malpractice suit to help with medical bills. Again, touch question for me in terms of the lawsuit, but not the abortion as I would not make that choice.
ReplyDeleteWell, the whole point of a "wrongful birth" lawsuit is the abortion. The person in question knew about the condition because, again, it was found out at the standard 22 week ultrasound.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the lawsuit (and what must be proven) is that someone "should have" known earlier, because 22 weeks is past the acceptable time frame for legal abortion.
So abortion has to be an issue here. It's the only issue.
I would think it would still become a malpractice suit because the doctor missed the markers at 15 weeks, or chose not to tell you. I think you could testify that you life would have been 'easier' without this child, but 'better' would be harder to prove, hence the lying.
ReplyDeleteYeah. It's a sticky wicket.
ReplyDeletewould i have an abortion? no. not for any reason. God "got" me pregnant, God chooses who lives and dies.
ReplyDeleteThe dilemma here is, however not about an abortion or even the health of the child. It is punishment or malpractice for the choice of the doctor (or mistake) for not making you aware of the condition. I think that in some instances malpractice lawsuits are necessary. If the doctor showed purposeful neglect and the child's life would never be 'fulfilled' (whatever that means) i'm sure some would choose to sue.
That doesn't make the child's life any better, it just makes the financial conditions of the life easier to bear.
However, I'm back to the original theory that God "got" you pregnant, so it was God's decision to have that child live whatever life he gave.
I wouldn't lie to win a lawsuit, no matter what. And in this case it would be a frivolous lawsuit.
Yes, but I think the point is being missed by you all. This isn't a malpractice suit. That's a whole other ball of wax. This is a wrongful birth suit, which means the entire premise is based on the knowledge that 7 weeks of knowing a condition somehow makes one's life easier because 7 weeks earlier and one could have aborted.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, when you find out the condition at 22 weeks, you think "Well. That's going to be tough, but I'm sure we'll manage." But if you find out at 15 weeks (the premise of the lawsuit argues) then, well, that's just too bad, and bye bye damaged fetus.
I mean, really.
It doesn't matter whether YOU would have an abortion or not, because the entire premise of the hypothetical is based on the fact that you would, or that you'd have to convince a jury that you would have, had you known.
actually, i read the premise as would you lie about it? I wouldn't have an abortion regardless of WHEN i found out. I MIGHT sue the doctor if i thought he purposefully withheld information. But if it wouldn't have made a difference in the pregnancy, birth, labor, delivery or life of the child (if i knew) -- then i don't understand the concept of wrongful birth.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind she's suing because the doctor made the choice for her (she feels) and she feels if she'd had the information she would have POSSIBLY aborted.
Because if you hadn't considered abortion, then how could this be a wrongful birth?
The premise is "I would have aborted, had I known."
ReplyDeleteSo answering the hypothetical question with a "Well, I wouldn't abort" doesn't get to the premise in any way. Because we're assuming that you WOULD have aborted, had you known sooner.
It wasn't really a WWYD, more of a "discuss". I think.