" Wrongful Birth "

Post Reply New Topic

This. There is also a bill in Arizona (and one in Kansas as well if I'm correct) that would allow doctors to deliberately lie about this sort of thing. The bad thing is it not only opens up the door ethically, but can also cause problems for the parents should the child be born with a mental disability due to lack of preparedness to meet the needs of that child. Those tests exist for that purpose. Usually, the assumption with pregnancy and childcare is that it won't be a hassle, they'll be able to go back to work in a year or two, etc. But when you have a child with Down's Syndrome or something like it and you realize that won't be the case, it can cause problems for the couple (and older children if there are any) because that child will need constant supervision and care pretty much all of his/her life and they may not be able to handle it emotionally, financially, etc. because it can be draining.

My question is: how good is special education in Arizona. If the state is compassionate enough to keep an unborn baby alive by telling doctors to lie, then they should be compassionate enough to provide the education to children with learning disabilities, or mental impairment in order to achieve a productive and happy life. You know, special ed classes that are more than just warehousing for mentally "slow" children.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

$2.9 mil seems more than most parents get for a wrongful death

Well, obviously that makes sense...

And-- Is it just my black-and-white AS brain that thinks it should be a no-brainer that it's wrong to lie to someone just to induce them to make the choice you would make?? I mean, there's a pretty clear difference between stating your POV about what you think they should do (definitely OK), being manipulative and saying things like, "It's the only humane thing to do" or "You'll burn in Hell if you abort" or "Think of the other children" (probably justifiable, but really asinine IMO-- I think that is in effect emotional abuse, but that's a pretty murky concept), and outright fabricating or concealing information simply so someone you don't even really know who isn't a long-term part of your personal life will make a choice that's acceptable to you (obviously wrong).

I guess the contradiction between "We really love her" and "We would have killed her if we knew she was going to be like this" bugs me. If you wouldn't have, then why sue?? You'd be in this boat anyway.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it is just money-grubbing, whether out of nefarious intent or the honest need to have funds to take care of the kid or something between that would be best defined as "FEAR."

FEAR is a really good point. The economic reality is that many people live in fear of becoming homeless because of the reduced opportunities for employment in our society. Having a Down's child for some people means for at least one of the individuals in the marriage to quit their job, if there is a marriage, or even a significant other.

I doubt that 90% of women are making this decision lightly. The decision, in part is likely one of ability to maintain basic subsistence for some; the same basic reason that the harsh reality of natural infanticide that is practiced throughout the animal kingdom.

There are no guarantees in the US that our society is going to continue with the type of social nets provided for individuals that have children with disabilities; our media sources makes this clear to us almost everyday.

It's likely that many people would choose to have a Down's child if they could be assured of government support for the needs of the child, through the course of the child's lifetime. But, it is ultimately the parents responsibility, just as it always has been.

And, the issue is not specific to Down's syndrome, it is the economic reality for all parents, in a decision to have a child, or at times to even afford a pregnancy.

Close to half of the population is dependent on a government for some type of subsistence assistance, from a government that in part continues to provide the message that it cannot continue to provide subsistence support to it's citizenary, or jobs.

I can't blame the parents for taking the opportunity to ensure that the child is going to be taken care of through the course of it's lifetime along with themselves, and any other children they may have. If they don't take effective action now for their future; their likely will be no societial assistance if the government no longer provides support.

In a world that appears to be slowly moving back to the laws of the jungle, these parents are doing what they have to, to survive. It is a rational human decision, regardless of how it is ethically, or morally judged.

They are following the letter of the law of the country they live in, I'm not sure what else should be expected of them.

The only proven effective answer to reduce abortions, is to provide effective contraceptives, prenatal and adult healthcare. It is interesting that the same legislators that are proposing the actions in Kansas and Arizona, are also hoping to repeal efforts for accessible health care and accessible contraceptives.

Interestingly though, as linked below, the complaints against protecting doctors from Negligence in prenatal care, are just as adamant as they were in the articles that provided information, for someone that took advantage of those legal rights.

It sounds like a fringe bill attempted to gain support from a segment of a politicians constituency. It's not likely many are going to vote to allow a doctor the legal protection to withhold medical information, regardless if they believe in abortion or not.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/arizona-and-kansas-pursue-laws-letting-docs-hide-information-women

Oh, I don't put anything past the fundies and holy rollers who have taken over the GOP in the last couple decades.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Seeing some of the laws that have recently passed in Arizona and the conservative nature of both Kansas and Arizona, the potential does appear to be there.

Comments in the Motherjones publication aren't reflective of that demographic, it would be interesting to see the comments from a more conservative publication, particularly in Arizona.

Unfortunately, I'm the sort of guy who steers clear of right wing nut rags passing as magazines. Too bad Inuyasha isn't here to fill us in on that regard!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

True, I don't watch TV; I occasionally watched Fox, for the Amusement factor when I did watch TV. He did a good job of keeping the site "fair and balanced", with the Fox news coverage.

Regardless, part of me misses that guy!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Me too, he kept the PPR section interesting.

He certainly did.
I wonder if we'll ever hear his overbearingly right wing cry again.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He disappeared in December, returned for one visit in February, and indicated he he was not coming back. Good to know he's okay, though.

Really! I had failed to read his last goodbye.
I guess the rest of us godless idol worshiping liberal masturbators scared him off.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Wrongful birth?
WHUT?
That insinuates that they would have aborted bubs if they knew she had Downs. A 'wrongful' birth is attached to things like botched abortions.
If it really is more a case of them being ill-prepared and angry about the negligence of the doctors, they should have said something more akin to 'false information' during pregnancy.

I don't think they'd actually need $7 million to care for their daughter with down syndrone for her whole life like they originally sued for. They probably wouldn't even need $2.9 million like they actually got. It might actually be cheaper to have a child with down syndrone than a normal child because they probably wouldn't go to college, although they probably wouldn't be able to support themselves either. They could always put her up for adoption if they wanted too. They wouldn't have to take care of her for her entire life. They probably just sued the doctors to make money. I don't think they should've won this trial, but I probably would've done the same thing if I was in their position because I'd want to make all of that easy money. I still haven't gotten the opportunity to sue someone for that much money yet. Hopefully I get that opportunity someday so I can get rich if I win.