The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Wrongful life suit???

  1. #1
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default Wrongful life suit???

    I just attended a conference on hereditary cancer. One speaker was an attorney who spoke to the legality of informing patients and their potentially affected children/relatives, and potential liability for failure to do so.

    One case that actually went to trial was a person who had a genetic defect, who sued his parents doctor for failing to inform them of genetic testing that could have alerted them to the potential condition, and allowed them to abort while still able.

    Bottom line is the person is suing the doctor for not giving the parents the needed information to commit abortion, thus resulting in a "wrongful life" suit. The person said he would NOT want to have been born if he knew what he would have! (a close relative to this is when parents of an afflicted child sue their doctor because THEY would not have wanted to give birth to a "defective child"!)

    What say the anti-abortion Christians to this? Should a doctor be held liable for not aiding and abetting murder, as I'm to understand? Or should a doctor be held to the standard that they must give information to parents, knowing it will result in abortion most likely? Does an anti-abortion doctor have the right to withhold information if he/she thinks it's "best" for the unborn child?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  2. #2
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    a doctor should give them the information they pay for.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    a doctor should give them the information they pay for.
    True, but these cases held the doctor liable for not offering the testing. Most patients don't know what they need, so it's up to the doctor to provide them in an honest, ethical manner, what they need. Now the courts, through disgruntled family members, are doling out punishment.

    This is purely a personal value issue, that the legal system is imposing upon. I did not ask this to start flaming or to argue, but rather to hear what different people's opinions are on this. Ever since about 1970 or so, medical technology has far surpassed our grasp of medical ethics. Not that we're "unethical", just that there are many questions that we haven't answered, to keep up with what the technology can provide.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #4
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ...This is purely a personal value issue, that the legal system is imposing upon. I did not ask this to start flaming or to argue...
    sounds good...
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    I'm not pro-abortion for ME....but would not take that right away from others.

    However, as a PARENT, I would want to know if my child was likely or definitely going to be born with a life-altering ailment.

    When I was pregnant, they did a protein test I believe (its used for testing for down syndrome). When they told me about the test, I was certainly concerned that there might be a problem.

    But had my child been affected, I would have wanted to know at the earliest opportunity.

    I can't say I would or would not have kept the child. But I would have wanted the info. Fortunately, I have never been faced with the decision to abort or not.


    WRL

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    712

    Default

    The doctors I have seen will not willingly give out any information unless you ask specific questions. They do inform on conditions that need treated immediately. It takes a lot of trust that you won't sue before a doctor will start giving out all information without questions asked.
    Terry Britton, P.E.

    Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

  7. #7
    Senior Member WaterDogRem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SLC, UT
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    One case that actually went to trial was a person who had a genetic defect, who sued his parents doctor for failing to inform them of genetic testing that could have alerted them to the potential condition, and allowed them to abort while still able.
    Since he thinks he should of been aborted, sounds like this person needs to remove himself from this planet and do us all a favor.

  8. #8
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WaterDogRem View Post
    Since he thinks he should of been aborted, sounds like this person needs to remove himself from this planet and do us all a favor.
    The ultimate "late term abortion"! I get your point. Not to belittle that person's feelings, but on one hand you have doctors being sued for NOT facilitating abortions, on the other, being harassed and in some cases threatened with imprisonment for performing them.

    I wonder if that doc could mount as his legal defense, that he is a Christian who believes life begins at conception, and holding him to such standards as requested by this plaintiff, would amount to compelling him to commit murder, according to his beliefs.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    I just attended a conference on hereditary cancer. One speaker was an attorney who spoke to the legality of informing patients and their potentially affected children/relatives, and potential liability for failure to do so.

    One case that actually went to trial was a person who had a genetic defect, who sued his parents doctor for failing to inform them of genetic testing that could have alerted them to the potential condition, and allowed them to abort while still able.

    Bottom line is the person is suing the doctor for not giving the parents the needed information to commit abortion, thus resulting in a "wrongful life" suit. The person said he would NOT want to have been born if he knew what he would have! (a close relative to this is when parents of an afflicted child sue their doctor because THEY would not have wanted to give birth to a "defective child"!)

    What say the anti-abortion Christians to this? Should a doctor be held liable for not aiding and abetting murder, as I'm to understand? Or should a doctor be held to the standard that they must give information to parents, knowing it will result in abortion most likely? Does an anti-abortion doctor have the right to withhold information if he/she thinks it's "best" for the unborn child?

    I really don't know what to say...I don't know enough about what a doctor is required to do or not do. I would like to know more details before I could have much of an answer to your questions. I couldn't imagine being in the doctor's shoes in that situation because I would feel as though I contributed to the death of an innocent child if I knew that would be the decision. I would imagine that the doctor would not be 'aiding and abetting murder' though, because unfortunately, abortion is not viewed as murder by our legal system (unless someone kills a pregnant womanNice consistency...). I don't guess any doctor has the right to withhold information that may be pertinent to the health of the patient...That would be similar to what 'all of us republicans' have complained about with Obamacare deciding what care we can and cannot receive, right?

    If the doctors personal morals and values would make him anti abortion and he feels certain that a test or information would almost certainly result in the parents decided to abort the child, his best course of action would probably be to refer the parents to another doctor. That's probably the best solution that I would be able to come up with if I was in that situation.


    On a side note, there are people that argue that abortion should be okay up to the point of viability outside the womb. Of course, this would be a legal nightmare and incredibly difficult to define, based on many, many factors, but here is a monkey wrench...I read online last night about a baby that was born at 22 WEEKS and has survived thusfar. 22 WEEKS. That is just incredible. I saw pictures of the child and I can't imagine anyone killing there own flesh and blood and feeling like it's not wrong. If you choose to have an abortion of convenience, you should be forced to look at your child after it has been removed from your body.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    I wonder if that doc could mount as his legal defense, that he is a Christian who believes life begins at conception, and holding him to such standards as requested by this plaintiff, would amount to compelling him to commit murder, according to his beliefs.
    If a member of the military can choose not to go to war due to religious reasons (Muhammed Ali comes to mind) then what would make a doctor any different? A doctor should not be forced by law to do something that directly violates his morals, but given the state of the legal system, his best course of action would probably be to refer the patient to another doctor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •