Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

are defects easy to predict always?

what if a pregnant woman is abusing drugs and the child comes out screwed up?

i totally think a doctor should be honest as possible, but if a kid has some defect, the doctor shouldn't automatically be held liable.

There are certain defects that are detectable from a certain time. There isn't much room for grey in this. I don't know if you've ever been through a pregnancy with a SO or female family member but the norm is to have many doctors visits to check on the baby throughout the process.

That's what gets me so riled up about this, it's such a breech of trust.

Can't wait for this to get passed in Pennsylvania.

Other states are Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

GODDAMNIT

So glad we didn't have our baby in this stupid regressive fucked up excuse for a state.

 

[JGS]

From the bill.

E. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW

Seems like it's intended to to protect against dishonest doctors here but at the same time I have no idea how difficult it would be to prove intent on the part of the doctor in a civil case. I'd like to hear what the standard of proof would be, actually.

Medical records. If the doctor ran tests that showed a defect and didn't inform the patient, he is either incompetent or dishonest. It should mean more money if the records suddenly disappear.

If the doctor performed test and nothing showed and the kid turned out to have a defect, the doctor wouldn't be liable. I don't think the doctor would ever be liable for not suggesting abortion as an option.

 

[shortyme]

What in the fuck is this? How on earth could this get passed in 10 different states? What in the hell is wrong with people? I just..what?

ffs I hate people.

 

[Musha_Soturi]

As a 30 year old woman who probably won't start having kids for another couple of years, and therefore will have an increased risk of problems that may result in me chosing to have an abortion, I'd just like to say THANK GOD that I live in England.

 

[marrec]

As a 30 year old woman who probably won't start having kids for another couple of years, and therefore will have an increased risk of problems that may result in me chosing to have an abortion, I'd just like to say THANK GOD that I live in England.

Stop rubbing it in my face!

I can't help that half of America probably thinks this is a good thing.

I need to move.

 

[JGS]

As a 30 year old woman who probably won't start having kids for another couple of years, and therefore will have an increased risk of problems that may result in me chosing to have an abortion, I'd just like to say THANK GOD that I live in England.

You would know about these problems here too and you could abort at will in the first 2 trimesters. We've been known to have a few good doctors in this country.

Most women would not know enough about this law to be get over worried about it now.

Plus, everybody knows you make real money in lawsuits in the States.

Stop rubbing it in my face!

I can't help that half of America probably thinks this is a good thing.

I need to move.

It may not be a good thing, nut it sure is pointless.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Medical records. If the doctor ran tests that showed a defect and didn't inform the patient, he is either incompetent or dishonest. It should mean more money if the records suddenly disappear.

If the doctor performed test and nothing showed and the kid turned out to have a defect, the doctor wouldn't be liable. I don't think the doctor would ever be liable for not suggesting abortion as an option.

But I don't think laws like this are necessary. I'd have to think these types of lawsuits are pretty rare- and up to the courts to decide.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Other states are Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

All states with large and rich (and politically involved) mormon and/or conservative evangelical communities.

 

[JGS]

But I don't think laws like this are necessary. I'd have to think these types of lawsuits are pretty rare- and up to the courts to decide.

They are rare. There's no point to it at all. I imagine in each of the states that passed it, there was probably some crazy case that it applied to though.

 

[marrec]

It may not be a good thing, nut it sure is pointless.

It's not pointless because it's just another attempt to control reproductive rights. They've made a breech of trust between you and your doctor available and left you with no recourse should it occur.

That's not pointless.

 

[Zzoram]

Just test your doctor. Make a casual anti-abortion political comment and see how they respond. If they approve, don't trust them.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Imagine if states exempted policemen from being sued for using the digital records databases for religious solicitations.

Would be a not-quite-as-messed up law for another field of work. But it still sounds outrageous.

Making religious exemptions for misconduct from a position of power and authority is terrible

 

[squidyj]

Imagine if states exempted policemen from being sued for using the digital records databases for religious solicitations.

What? How is that even close to comparable?

Just test your doctor. Make a casual anti-abortion political comment and see how they respond. If they approve, don't trust them.

What if your doctor is just pretending to agree so as to put you at ease, you need a second subject to make a conflicting comment at another time.

 

[GaimeGuy]

What? How is that even close to comparable?

It's not nearly as bad a breach, but I clarrified why I made the comparison with my edit..

 

[marrec]

It's not nearly as bad a breach, but I clarrified why I made the comparison with my edit..

Imagine if they tried to deny a worker contraception because their employer was religious...

 

[Violet_0]

anti-abortion ideology always goes to far

 

[squidyj]

It's not nearly as bad a breach, but I clarrified why I made the comparison with my edit..

You're completely confusing the intent of the bill though. The intent is NOT to allow doctors to intentionally mislead their patients so as to prevent abortions, this is clearly stated.

Imagine if they tried to deny a worker contraception because their employer was religious...

Wait a minute....

 

[JGS]

It's not pointless because it's just another attempt to control reproductive rights. They've made a breech of trust between you and your doctor available and left you with no recourse should it occur.

That's not pointless.

A that hypothetically prevents about .00001% of abortions (When the stars align properly) does not control reproductive rights. There's no breach of trust because is only protecting against frivolous lawsuits. True breaches remain sueable and it's easy to see the difference.

Women will be getting rid of the same number of prekids and for far less important reasons than defect risks.

 

[marrec]

A that hypothetically prevents about .00001% of abortions (When the stars align properly) does not control reproductive rights. There's no breach of trust because is only protecting against frivolous lawsuits. True breaches remain sueable and it's easy to see the difference.

Women will be getting rid of the same number of prekids and for far less important reasons than defect risks.

That number is astronomically low. I've seen estimates of 80-90% of parents choosing to terminate a pregnancy when a severe defect is found.

If these types of terminations occur in the numbers that you are claiming than this bill is even more outrageous because it needlessly passes legislation with the intent of controlling reproductive rights. You cannot deny that this bill was passed with abortion prevention in mind JGS.

 

[Suairyu]

I can't even bring myself to have an emotional reaction to this sort of shit anymore. It certainly doesn't surprise me.

I hope all of USA GAF is going to fight this. Start drafting those letters to your representatives.

edit - oh, look, it's JGS!

 

[FlyingTeacup]

A that hypothetically prevents about .00001% of abortions (When the stars align properly) does not control reproductive rights. There's no breach of trust because is only protecting against frivolous lawsuits. True breaches remain sueable and it's easy to see the difference.

Women will be getting rid of the same number of prekids and for far less important reasons than defect risks.

the fact you're defending the bill pretty much convinces me the bill intent is religious.

 

[leadbelly]

Stop rubbing it in my face!

I can't help that half of America probably thinks this is a good thing.

I need to move.

We'd be happy to take you Marrec.

 

[krypt0nian]

Link.

Maybe the A in GAF should be Arizona too.

I cannot believe the current war on women in this country right now. Sickening.

 

[Subprime]

Are there really physicians who put their views on abortion before their duty as a doctor?

"are there human beings who put their ideology before the wellbeing of other people"

think hard.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So, it still needs to pass the house and then be signed by (female) Governor Brewer. Let's see what happens.

Arizona politics is probably some of the worst in America. But maybe that's just a product of too many senior citizens baking their brains in the desert.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Wow, disgusting.

 

[LosDaddie]

Thank fuck I live in England.

Never underestimate the American voter's willingness, even eagerness, to vote against their best interests so long as their trusted media source tells them to.

 

[JGS]

the fact you're defending the bill pretty much convinces me the bill intent is religious.

I'm not defending the bill. It shouldn't have been introduced because it serves no purpose and it's ridiculous to thinkk that the point of the bill was to limit abortions instead of limiting lawsuits - the thing people should be up in arms about if anything.

I have indicated the bill is pointless which means the bill is harmless for the entiriety of all womanhood seeking an abortion. This is something that is indicated in the argument against it. Reading is fundamental.

 

[LOCK]

This is truly fucked up. The question now should be how many doctors will withhold information?

 

[fanboi]

Wonder if the purpose of this is to shield doctors from lawsuits since they can miss this things.

But of course it will backfire...

 

[marrec]

I'm not defending the bill. It shouldn't have been introduced because it serves no purpose and it's ridiculous to thinkk that the point of the bill was to limit abortions instead of limiting lawsuits - the thing people should be up in arms about if anything.

I have indicated the bill is pointless which means the bill is harmless for the entiriety of all womanhood seeking an abortion. This is something that is indicated in the argument against it. Reading is fundamental.

The bill may be pointless to you but the intent of the bill is not harmless. Read my post above.

Wonder if the purpose of this is to shield doctors from lawsuits since they can miss this things.

But of course it will backfire...

Then it should have been more inclusive than targeting specifically birth defects.

 

[JGS]

That number is astronomically low. I've seen estimates of 80-90% of parents choosing to terminate a pregnancy when a severe defect is found.

If these types of terminations occur in the numbers that you are claiming than this bill is even more outrageous because it needlessly passes legislation with the intent of controlling reproductive rights. You cannot deny that this bill was passed with abortion prevention in mind JGS.

I made it up lol. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. My mistake. Although i think your estimates are off too, 90% of a low percentage of defects still means a low overall issue.

The number is still extremely low in comparison to the number of abortions that are performed solely because the woman doesn't want to have a kid. Yet another reason the bill is pointless. It doesn't matter if the bill prevents 1% (Astronomically high), 90+ percent is based on simple gold old personal preference.

That doesn't even count the small group of doctors that are conspiring to prevent women from having abortions that this low percentage of defective pregnancies would apply to. It would be like winning the anti-abortion lottery.

The bill may be pointless to you but the intent of the bill is not harmless. Read my post above.

The bill is pointless to opponents too.

Then it should have been more inclusive than targeting specifically birth defects.

Then it wouldn't be fair.

The argument from the article is that doctors were getting sued for things they didn't know about because in a sue happy culture (Especially with gynecological/childbirth areas) services someone has to be blamed. The bill is addressing that controversy.

It's completely worthless as an anti-abortion measure.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

Hm. Sounds like they're attacking the malpractice issue the wrong way. As JGS said, how often is this bill (if it passes) even going to be invoked? And what is it even doing?

The devil is in the details here, right? I'm all for restricting medical malpractice suits (I think America is far too litigious), but have these bills been written properly?

Take this:

Baby is born with disability/birth defect. Parents are understandably upset. They would have aborted if they knew, so they sue their doctor. Maybe they're vindictive, maybe they want funds to help raise the child; who knows. Intent is irrelevant here. The question is: should they be allowed to sue?

Let's say the doctor didn't know. Maybe the tests were inconclusive. Maybe they just didn't run the tests; here in Texas, I know my wife had to specifically request them when she was pregnant (not that we would have aborted for anything other than a life-threatening issue - we just wanted to be prepared). Maybe the doctor didn't run all the possible tests he could have (overtesting is another problem I have with the current state of medicine, but that's another discussion).

Before this bill, would the parents have had cause for a successful lawsuit? After the bill, would the doctor be protected (as, personally, I feel he should be)?​

Or, let's say they doctor knew, but deliberately didn't tell because he believed the baby should be born anyway. Regardless of your personal opinions on abortion, it is a legal medical option, and the doctor shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way.

Before the bill, the parents would easily have had cause for a successful lawsuit. Does this bill actually prevent the lawsuit in this case? If the doctor deliberately withholds medical information, can't he still be sued?​

Basically, does this bill actually do anything? It doesn't seem to me that it does much, other than stand as a barrier to some gray-area lawsuits and become some bullet point to win some votes from the far right... (EDIT: Which should still be plenty enough to get frustrated/outraged at - politicians are working far too hard to win extremists these days as opposed to, you know, actually accomplishing valuable legislation.)

 

[FlyingTeacup]

I made it up lol. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. My mistake. Although i think your estimates are off too, 90% of a low percentage of defects still means a low overall issue.

The number is still extremely low in comparison to the number of abortions that are performed solely because the woman doesn't want to have a kid. Yet another reason the bill is pointless. It doesn't matter if the bill prevents 1% (Astronomically high), 90+ percent is based on simple gold old personal preference.

That doesn't even count the small group of doctors that are conspiring to prevent women from having abortions that this low percentage of defective pregnancies would apply to. It would be like winning the anti-abortion lottery.The bill is pointless to opponents too.

oh really? nice of you to pin all the blame to the women. Have ever considered guys typically don't want kids more than women?

your 1% is not off far, but not astronomically high, googled, apparently 1% of abortion in england and wales were performed under risks of child being born handicapped.

 

[TheOddOne]

I mean... c'mon this shit can't be real.

 

[krypt0nian]

I mean... c'mon this shit can't be real.

Arizona, man.

 

[JGS]

oh really? nice of you to pin all the blame to the women. Have ever considered guys typically don't want kids more than women?

Wat.

I didn't say anything about blame. Are you really saying that the bf's are forcing them to have them? I thought it was always about choice. My mistake.

 

[Menelaus]

This seems topical: Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for 'wrongful birth' after child born with Down syndrome

 

[JGS]

your 1% is not off far, but not astronomically high, googled, apparently 1% of abortion in england and wales were performed under risks of child being born handicapped.

I was discussing the percentage of ones where the defect isn't known by the mother until the birth. This is what the bill is addressing.

This seems topical: Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for 'wrongful birth' after child born with Down syndrome

Just read it. Interesting article although I don't get the parents. I am learning some new stuff about diagnosing Down's Syndrome.

That's a good example of a case that would still go through the court system.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Ideologically, this bill is all sorts of wrong.
But like others, I don't really see how it in practice would limit people's reproductive rights.

Though it does allow for a slippery slope, if the next bill removes the possibility of sueing a doctor for malpractive should he "forget" telling you about any issues your fetues might have.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Medical records. If the doctor ran tests that showed a defect and didn't inform the patient, he is either incompetent or dishonest. It should mean more money if the records suddenly disappear.

If the doctor performed test and nothing showed and the kid turned out to have a defect, the doctor wouldn't be liable. I don't think the doctor would ever be liable for not suggesting abortion as an option.

Now this seems perfectly reasonable to me. If this is the case this law is fine. I know for my kid the doctors said, "Do you want to run this test, it will give some probability of Down's and xyz condition"?

 

[marrec]

I made it up lol. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. My mistake. Although i think your estimates are off too, 90% of a low percentage of defects still means a low overall issue.

The number is still extremely low in comparison to the number of abortions that are performed solely because the woman doesn't want to have a kid. Yet another reason the bill is pointless. It doesn't matter if the bill prevents 1% (Astronomically high), 90+ percent is based on simple gold old personal preference.

Well neither one of us are statisticians I guess. 86% of GAFers are though.

That doesn't even count the small group of doctors that are conspiring to prevent women from having abortions that this low percentage of defective pregnancies would apply to. It would be like winning the anti-abortion lottery. The bill is pointless to opponents too. Then it wouldn't be fair.

The point isn't how many malicious doctors this will protect, even if the number is low the intent of the bill makes it offensive.

The argument from the article is that doctors were getting sued for things they didn't know about because in a sue happy culture (Especially with gynecological/childbirth areas) services someone has to be blamed. The bill is addressing that controversy.

It's completely worthless as an anti-abortion measure.

They're just using Malpractice Reform as a shield to obfuscate the real reason the bill was passed.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

They're just using Malpractice Reform as a shield to obfuscate the real reason the bill was passed.

More specifically, I think they're deliberately trying to pass a toothless bill as a bullet point and litmus test for the next election cycle.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This seems topical: Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for 'wrongful birth' after child born with Down syndrome

Yeah and the doctors should be protected in that case. IIRC, the doctors can only give a probability based on optional tests. 5 minutes of internet research and you can find out what tests you need even if the doctor doesn't recommend them. And why would the doctor recommend them? They are not necessary for the safe birth of the mother or child, they are only necessary for making an abortion decision.

 

[JGS]

The point isn't how many malicious doctors this will protect, even if the number is low the intent of the bill makes it offensive.

I'm saying if the number is near non-existent, it isn't worthy of a law to begin with and you let the courts decide. It's not a bad bill because of all the ways one can slip through the cracks, it's a bad bill because it will never be utilized properly because the perfect storm will rarely, if ever, arise. You don't introduce bills on the basis of minute possibilities.

They're just using Malpractice Reform as a shield to obfuscate the real reason the bill was passed.

The problem is it doesn't do that even remotely well. It helps malpractice reform way more than it would ever prevent abortion rights.

More specifically, I think they're deliberately trying to pass a toothless bill as a bullet point and litmus test for the next election cycle.

How would that work exactly? What scenario would play out that would turn this into a flat out anti-abortion bill with teeth?

 

[Omegasquash]

Oh joy.

Does it feel to anyone else like we, as Americans, roll over and let ourselves get pounded in the ass with objects both fearsome and terrible on some things, and raise hell about others? If a Doctor can choose (for whatever reason) to not inform a patient of a potential outcome of anything, my thinking is that it's a violation of the oath. As such, the doctor should be banned from practice.

Mistakes are mistakes. Choice is another matter altogether. It's like the difference between manslaughter and murder.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

Wat.

I didn't say anything about blame. Are you really saying that the bf's are forcing them to have them? I thought it was always about choice. My mistake.

really? i read that you claim majority of abortions are performed 'solely' because women do not want to have kids.

Yes, it is about choice. Women can choose to carry on/terminate their pregnancies. If your partner does want to have kids? if the girl is underage?

so, why not have all these babies, jgs will come to the rescue whenever the diaper needs changing in wee hours, i'm sure jgs will pay the tuition, heck, i'm sure you'll supply the milk, no?

 

[jacket320]

Yeah and the doctors should be protected in that case. IIRC, the doctors can only give a probability based on optional tests. 5 minutes of internet research and you can find out what tests you need even if the doctor doesn't recommend them. And why would the doctor recommend them? They are not necessary for the safe birth of the mother or child, they are only necessary for making an abortion decision.

In this case, I'm sure their doctors brought it up because of her advanced maternal age. The article mentions that the husband initially asked about it but prenatal care visits are dynamic, lots of questions and information floating around and I'd guess that the subject came up for both parties around the same time.

It's hard for me to believe that the signs of Downs weren't there in utero. There are all kinds of methods to diagnose these types of disorders; even a simple (and routine) ultrasound will show signs relatively early on, which is probably what lead to CVS.

But if the CVS test was done correctly and came back normal (no test is perfect and I'm sure there are margins for error in all of them) then it's hard to fault the health care providers in this case imo.

Also lol @ the last sentence. In my limited experience, most people just want to know. Sure, older patients that are pushing 40 or those that have spent thousands on fertility procedures are more likely to pursue termination of the pregnancy. The physicians job in this and in all cases is to provide information for the patient to make an educated choice about their care. It reads to me like the AZ bill is offering dual protection - protection to the patients from crazy doctors that are pushing some kind of anti-abortion agenda (I've never met one in prenatal care personally) and protection to the doctors from crazy patients that have a baby with a malformation that decide to retroactively sue their providers for negligence.

 

[JGS]

really? i read that you claim majority of abortions are performed 'solely' because women do not want to have kids.

This is true even if the bf doesn't want them. I have rarely heard of any cases where a woman has an abortion against her will in the USA.

Yes, it is about choice. Women can choose to carry on/terminate their pregnancies. If your partner does want to have kids? if the girl is underage?

so, why not have all these babies, jgs will come to the rescue whenever the diaper needs changing in wee hours, i'm sure jgs will pay the tuition, heck, i'm sure you'll supply the milk, no?

Wat part II.

lol

 

[cousins]

So Doctors are now free to deliberately mislead their patients and potentially put their health at risk?

PROGRESS

this. what the fuck is wrong with this country.