Wrongful Birth

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:34 pm

Parents win $2.9M for 'wrongful birth' - New York Daily News

A Portland, Ore. couple was awarded $2.9 million on Friday for the care of their Down syndrome baby, who they argue would not have been born if doctors had not been "negligent” in their pre-natal care.
Apparently they claim that they would have aborted if they had known that the baby had Downs Syndrome. I have no reason to doubt them.

A week after the baby was born, the Levys discovered their baby did in fact have Down syndrome. The doctor had taken a sample of the wrong kind of tissue, according to the lawsuit - a mistake that was never caught.
Open & shut case, if you ask me. The parents are going to raise a child they say they would have aborted if the doctor/hospital had done their jobs right, so the parents hold them responsible for the unplanned medical costs. Seems fair.

~~~~~~~~~

But a hypothetical question was raised on a talk show: What if another set of parents had a baby born with birth defects that should have been caught with proper neonatal care ... and the parents, suddenly overwhelmed with the prospect of caring for this uber-special needs baby, lied and said they would have aborted, knowing that they never had any such intention.

Do you think such a lie is justified?

Would you be able to lie about wanting an abortion even while your baby smiled up at you?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:39 pm

Accountable;1388165 wrote: Parents win $2.9M for 'wrongful birth' - New York Daily News

Apparently they claim that they would have aborted if they had known that the baby had Downs Syndrome. I have no reason to doubt them.

Open & shut case, if you ask me. The parents are going to raise a child they say they would have aborted if the doctor/hospital had done their jobs right, so the parents hold them responsible for the unplanned medical costs. Seems fair.

~~~~~~~~~

But a hypothetical question was raised on a talk show: What if another set of parents had a baby born with birth defects that should have been caught with proper neonatal care ... and the parents, suddenly overwhelmed with the prospect of caring for this uber-special needs baby, lied and said they would have aborted, knowing that they never had any such intention.

Do you think such a lie is justified?

Would you be able to lie about wanting an abortion even while your baby smiled up at you?If it was going to help me make ends meet? You bet I'd lie and I'd think it was justified too. This is one reason national health care would be a plus, then people would not feel so alone in these kinds of circumstances.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:44 pm

Interesting case the Levys presented. But as to your question--most people I know who would welcome a Downs Syndrome baby I don't think would lie & disclaim the living baby. It would be pretty disgusting, wouldn't it? It's hard making a buck these days, true, but lying in a lawsuit like that I find dispicable.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:46 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388170 wrote: Interesting case the Levys presented. But as to your question--most people I know who would welcome a Downs Syndrome baby I don't think would lie & disclaim the living baby. It would be pretty disgusting, wouldn't it? It's hard making a buck these days, true, but lying in a lawsuit like that I find dispicable.
I have to agree. While intellectually I could make Ahso's case that it was justified & understandable, I think that the emotional factor of disclaiming the baby would overwhelm any cold logic for me.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:51 pm

Accountable;1388165 wrote: Parents win $2.9M for 'wrongful birth' - New York Daily News

Apparently they claim that they would have aborted if they had known that the baby had Downs Syndrome. I have no reason to doubt them.

Open & shut case, if you ask me. The parents are going to raise a child they say they would have aborted if the doctor/hospital had done their jobs right, so the parents hold them responsible for the unplanned medical costs. Seems fair.

~~~~~~~~~

But a hypothetical question was raised on a talk show: What if another set of parents had a baby born with birth defects that should have been caught with proper neonatal care ... and the parents, suddenly overwhelmed with the prospect of caring for this uber-special needs baby, lied and said they would have aborted, knowing that they never had any such intention.

Do you think such a lie is justified?

Would you be able to lie about wanting an abortion even while your baby smiled up at you?$2.9 Million dollars is alot of money. I'd smack my mother for $2.9 Million dollars(No I don't think I know why I'm capitalizing the word "Million")

Ok, no I wouldn't smack my mother for $2.9 Mill but I'd probably give it a good milling over!!!! :yh_rotfl

I would say that the doctors office is relied upon for such tests to be accurate and I do think the $2.9 Million dollars can effectually prove useful for their situation...

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:55 pm

For $2.9 million I would let my son smack me around. In fact, I'd insist.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:59 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388170 wrote: Interesting case the Levys presented. But as to your question--most people I know who would welcome a Downs Syndrome baby I don't think would lie & disclaim the living baby. It would be pretty disgusting, wouldn't it? It's hard making a buck these days, true, but lying in a lawsuit like that I find dispicable.A person may think twice about that once they're sleeping in the car with the child or in a more desperate situation. I couldn't care less how anyone assessed me morally, my focus is survival for myself and that of my child. those people who'd judge me for my decision will fade away anyway.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:03 pm

It means how would *I* assess myself morally, Ahso! I happen to be stuck on having integrity. It can be a burden. And, if I were living in a car, why would I have any kind of baby? What kind of people do you know?!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:20 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388180 wrote: It means how would *I* assess myself morally, Ahso! I happen to be stuck on having integrity. It can be a burden. And, if I were living in a car, why would I have any kind of baby? What kind of people do you know?!Good for you, enjoy your integrity. You don't know what the future holds for anyone, including you. The cost of raising a child who may never be able to care for themselves is enormous and the associated anxiety makes it even worse.

Again, national health care makes it all moot. If we are going to continue to overpopulate the planet due to our morality, we'd better band together and help each other out more than we're currently doing or else life will make liars out everyone. Humans will do whatever it takes to survive and that includes compromising our personal integrity if need be.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:29 pm

I agree with you re: nat'l health. I thought the point of Obama's plan was to free employers from the burden, & the worker too. I think, like you, that this would help take care of many problems & free up people's lives immensely.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:05 pm

What if there was National Health care and the same error occurred ?

Errors will happen, the mind set that somebody has to pay, or the need to have to think that way, is what I find wrong.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:17 pm

Bruv;1388207 wrote: What if there was National Health care and the same error occurred ?

Errors will happen, the mind set that somebody has to pay, or the need to have to think that way, is what I find wrong.

Me too.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:27 pm

The case was an open and shut instance of medical malpractice. If those buffoons screwed up their tests more than once with a single patient, I wonder how many patients they have killed by their incompetency.

As to whether I'd lie, I guess I will never know. I'd like to think that I would make an informed decision early on, but I will never know.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:54 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388180 wrote: It means how would *I* assess myself morally, Ahso! I happen to be stuck on having integrity. It can be a burden. And, if I were living in a car, why would I have any kind of baby? What kind of people do you know?!
My sister would never abandon her special needs daughter. If it meant living in a car, so be it. Fortunately, it has never come to that and never will. Despite not having national healthcare, they are living fairy well with the safety net provided by her state of residence.

It's a pretty nifty setup. It would cost X dollars to support the two women, and my sister is the only one who would be able to work. that means adult daycare, which means day-to-day living would cost more than my sister could hope to make. The solution: The state hired my sister to provide daycare to her daughter. Win/win. My sister gets training and income, the state saves on hiring a professional nurse or caregiver, and my niece gets to spend the day with the person she trusts more than anybody else in the whole wide world.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:57 pm

theia;1388208 wrote: [QUOTE=Bruv;1388207]What if there was National Health care and the same error occurred ?

Errors will happen, the mind set that somebody has to pay, or the need to have to think that way, is what I find wrong.Me too.

So just .... Oops? Try not to do it again, Doc? Next patient?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:42 pm

Accountable;1388226 wrote: So just .... Oops? Try not to do it again, Doc? Next patient?
Yes, it's called a "placebo in da placenta" probably of Greek origin.

"Look, he's healthy"

"No he isn't"

"Yes he is look at him"

"he's blatantly not"

"He is"

"look, I birthed the damn thing and I say he isn't"

"He is"

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:45 am

Accountable;1388226 wrote: So just .... Oops? Try not to do it again, Doc? Next patient?

Mine was a response to the compensation culture in general, not specifically the topic of this thread about which I haven't an opinion, yet...except perhaps to say that I think that anyone whose future quality of life is severely affected by the error of the medical profession should be compensated.

However, I find the over-used "I shall sue for compensation" used as a threat for getting one's own way is obscene.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:18 am

theia;1388233 wrote: However, I find the over-used "I shall sue for compensation" used as a threat for getting one's own way is obscene.
Agreed!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:28 am

What many people don't seem to grasp is in America you either learn how to play the greed game or you lose. This is a country where it's popular to adopt the philosophy "greed is good". Corporations, doctors, lawyers, union members, politicians, religious organizations, athletes, salespeople, police, firefighters, teachers and just about anyone else out there tailor their morality to coincide with what's legal, barely legal in most cases and what's not gets lobbied into law provided it adds to the system.

If you live in America and you can hit the lottery by either chance or legal action, or becoming proficient in a trade that's how the system is set up. Just about everyone in the US is scamming one another out of their income and those that either refuse to play or are too morally sanctimonious get left behind with their personal integrity intact, but integrity doesn't pay the bills.

"This is Amurica", says GW Bush, and that's how it's done here. Be glad, those of you who live elsewhere, that you live in a country where its citizens choose to assist each other rather than compete for who's more worthy of respect.

The idea here is to circulate money through the system and as time moves forward, taxes get reduced and our economy falters the rules loosen more and more in order for that to happen. The money gained by legal suits goes right back into the pool. So lets quit the pretense and understand it's "survival of the fittest" on an individual basis, unless, of course, we'd like to become more socialist.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:50 am

How many is aware of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Tuskegee syphilis experiment

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (also known as the Tuskegee syphilis study or Public Health Service syphilis study) was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama; 399 who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 201 without the disease. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards; primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying. Revelation of study failures by a whistleblower led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation on the protection of participants in clinical studies. Now studies require informed consent (with exceptions possible for U.S. Federal agencies which can be kept secret by Executive Order), communication of diagnosis, and accurate reporting of test results.

By 1947, penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Choices available to the doctors involved in the study might have included treating all syphilitic subjects and closing the study, or splitting off a control group for testing with penicillin. Instead, the Tuskegee scientists continued the study without treating any participants and withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area. The study continued, under numerous US Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press eventually resulted in its termination. The victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis, wives who contracted the disease, and children born with congenital syphilis.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history," led to the 1979 Belmont Report and the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). It also led to federal laws and regulations requiring Institutional Review Boards for the protection of human subjects in studies involving human subjects. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) manages this responsibility within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It's not the public's yearning for money that influences their decision to sue. The court awards the plaintiff with money as a result of damages, everyone is just primed in on the numerous lowlife cases that sees both citizens and attorney's trying to take advantage of such a right. To assume that this lawsuit was entirely about money is to beg the question and it's very existence is nothing more than a ploy to reinforce one's own personal view of abortion.

How arrogant and inconsiderate to think anyone should know what's in the best interests of others given just one occasion let alone those of many

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:33 pm

And then you have the flip side of children suing parents for allowing them to live knowing they would be disadvantaged.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:46 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1388356 wrote: And then you have the flip side of children suing parents for allowing them to live knowing they would be disadvantaged.
Now THAT would be an interesting case to follow. Young woman carries her baby to term. Baby has birth defects. Mother gives baby up for adoption. Baby grows up in foster care while mother gets her stuff together and raises a middle-class family. Disabled adult sues bio-mom for medical, education, you name it.

That could really happen. Maybe it already has.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:09 pm

it has ....I'm looking for it ............I think smoking was one of the suing cases. And you want women to give birth when that is looking at them down the track?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:01 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1388371 wrote: it has ....I'm looking for it ............I think smoking was one of the suing cases. And you want women to give birth when that is looking at them down the track?I want??

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1385817