• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

When Anti-Abortion Ideology Goes Too Far

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, I 100% agree with this law. Why should doctors be forced to suggest optional tests not related to the health of the mother or baby? This litigious society of unnecessary tests is why our healthcare is through the fucking roof.

If you care so much about having a "perfect" baby, I'm sure the Arian Race forums you visit will be able to inform you of the proper optional tests you need to ensure your master race bloodline is not sullied with an undesirable. Or, you know, google.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Nope, I 100% agree with this law. Why should doctors be forced to suggest optional tests not related to the health of the mother or baby? This litigious society of unnecessary tests is why our healthcare is through the fucking roof.
Click to expand...

And....wrong up to a point. They should lay out all things that can go wrong and allow the parents to make the choice. Is it scary? Yep. Such is life. Being best informed is always the best path, and those charged with and paid for our care should do just that.

I don't disagree that unnecessary tests are a plague on the system. Necessity, however, is the choice of the patient in most likely non-life threatening conditions. As an example, a blood test. Or a prostate exam. You don't have to get them. It probably pays to have them done, as uncomfortable as that may be, and doctors should damn well let you know the consequences of non-detection.
 
wait, does this shield a doctor who fucks up during childbirth, like not noticing that the baby's oxygen levels have dipped or something leading to brain damage?
 
Omegasquash said:
And....wrong up to a point. They should lay out all things that can go wrong and allow the parents to make the choice. Is it scary? Yep. Such is life. Being best informed is always the best path, and those charged with and paid for our care should do just that.

I don't disagree that unnecessary tests are a plague on the system. Necessity, however, is the choice of the patient in most likely non-life threatening conditions. As an example, a blood test. Or a prostate exam. You don't have to get them. It probably pays to have them done, as uncomfortable as that may be, and doctors should damn well let you know the consequences of non-detection.
Click to expand...

These tests are not related to the safe birth of the baby or the mother. They are only used to diagnose the probability of something like Down's syndrome. I just went through this last year and it was presented by the doctor as entirely optional. We didn't get it done, because it wasn't necessary for the safety of the birth. I wouldn't have a problem if the doctor didn't even mention it, because it is only related to abortion making decisions and not birth safety decisions which is the doctor's only responsibility imo.
 
The government can't step in on this? This is scary how can doctors even do this doesn't it go against their oath or something?
 
Okay this is the text of the bill and I honestly recommend anyone who ever reads about such and such piece of legislation actually go and look at the legislation, it's not always so difficult to understand

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 12-718, to read:
12-718. Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application
A. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, A CHILD OR CHILDREN WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.
B. A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL LIFE BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PERSON BRINGING THE ACTION WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.
C. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHILD IS BORN HEALTHY OR WITH A BIRTH DEFECT OR OTHER ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITION.�
D. 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.
Click to expand...

Deliberately withholding information about a foetus is not involved here, the major concern is more that there is now a greater burden of proof on plaintiffs in such a civil proceeding.
 
Hari Seldon said:
These tests are not related to the safe birth of the baby or the mother. They are only used to diagnose the probability of something like Down's syndrome. I just went through this last year and it was presented by the doctor as entirely optional. We didn't get it done, because it wasn't necessary for the safety of the birth. I wouldn't have a problem if the doctor didn't even mention it, because it is only related to abortion making decisions and not birth safety decisions which is the doctor's only responsibility imo.
Click to expand...

Down's Syndrome is a health condition. The child would have functional problems, die early, and likely experience difficulties that you or I couldn't imagine. I definitely respect your choice to not have the test. Hell, I went through it when my wife was pregnant and there was a risk of Fragile X. We decided on the spot that yes, we want the test and yes, we would keep the baby regardless of outcome. However if my son were born with Fragile X, and no option was laid before me to get the testing done, I believe it would be negligence on part of the medical care provider, and that's not OK.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I feel that the tests have merit and should be at least suggested. The choice, much like yours or mine, ought to rest solely with with the testee, so to speak. It seems to me that you don't, and well, I respectfully disagree.
 
JGS said:
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.
Click to expand...

We agree, but for completely different reasons. Either way it's a bad bill that was passed based on political and religious ideology instead of a pragmatic starting point for Malpractice Reform (Which does need to happen.)

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

There is a subtler way to help this specific area of Malpractice than this. Again, comprehensive reform is needed, but I doubt republicans and democrats will ever agree because both sides will attempt to use the issue of reform as a pry bar to open up other areas of legislation they want. Exactly what this bill does.

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

JGS, you know that politicians do this all the time. Some right-winger can use this as a badge to say they are 'Pro-Life', they can point to this bill as a landmark anti-abortion bill when expedient and point to it as a Malpractice Reform bill at other times. Truly the best kind of political ammo.
 
If a doctor lied to me about something like this I'm not sure if i'd be able to restrain myself from literally murdering them and feeling completely justified.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Nope, I 100% agree with this law. Why should doctors be forced to suggest optional tests not related to the health of the mother or baby? This litigious society of unnecessary tests is why our healthcare is through the fucking roof.

If you care so much about having a "perfect" baby, I'm sure the Arian Race forums you visit will be able to inform you of the proper optional tests you need to ensure your master race bloodline is not sullied with an undesirable. Or, you know, google.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not the doctor's call to make. Expectant parents deserve to have all the information provided to them, what they do with it is none of the doctor's business.
 
marrec said:
JGS, you know that politicians do this all the time. Some right-winger can use this as a badge to say they are 'Pro-Life', they can point to this bill as a landmark anti-abortion bill when expedient and point to it as a Malpractice Reform bill at other times. Truly the best kind of political ammo.
Click to expand...
Well, that's true, but any tactic could be used ("A banana is yellow, therefore abortion should be banned"). I guess I'm too pragmatic to see the danger of this being a gateway abortion bill.
Wiseblade said:
Yeah, but it's not the doctor's call to make. Expectant parents deserve to have all the information provided to them, what they do with it is none of the doctor's business.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this except I don't feel it's the doctor's job to know all the possible risks which seems to be what this bill is stating.

If a doctor lies about the risks or didn't know how to notice the risk, they deserve to have their butts sued off which this bill allows.
 
Al-ibn Kermit said:
It took me a few tries to understand the wording, because it's so ludicrous.

But what's happening is that doctors can choose to withhold any information about if a child will be born with some defect. Obviously, this information would make the mother much more likely to consider an abortion. I guess the theory of this law is that you'll be able to take care of the kid no matter how serious the issue?

Horrible that any politician would even consider making this into law. Even if I am pro-choice, I can understand why some people want to outlaw abortion in all cases. But a doctor not telling their patient information like this is disgusting. It goes against the entire idea of going to a doctor.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is actually happening? I honestly don't know, but it seems far more likely that a wrongful birth lawsuit would arise from a doctor not informing a pregnant woman about a defect due to human error or failure to disgnose; than a doctor mailiciously withholding information because he's afraid that the woman might have an abortion.
 
jkoch said:
Are you sure this is actually happening? I honestly don't know, but it seems far more likely that a wrongful birth lawsuit would arise from a doctor not informing a pregnant woman about a defect due to human error or failure to disgnose; than a doctor mailiciously withholding information because he's afraid that the woman might have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Incompetence is an issue yes, but it doesn't seem UNLIKELY that a doctor with strong religious beliefs would fail to inform.

In fact, I bet if I listen to Talk-Radio enough I'll hear one.
 
People, relax. Doctors will still be sued if they lied to you. Read the bill.

Shit, I really wish we could get REAL tort reform one day, though, unrelated to this.

EDIT: BTW, enough with the ignorance in this thread. I know hugely religious doctors who treat all their patients equally and don't let their beliefs get into things. Mindless speculation and ignorant accusations in this thread are just fucking stupid. So many doctors these days are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and they don't let their beliefs get in the way.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
I don't think many people here understand the extent the religious go to.
Click to expand...
marrec said:
I honestly try to avoid overtly religious doctors for this very reason.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't go that far to lie about it which the bill doesn't protect. It would mean the end of their career of delivering babies.

They shouldn't be recommending a particular option anyway.
Squirrel Killer said:
George Tiller was killed while he was ushering at his church.
Click to expand...
That was clearly a non-religious church.
 
squidyj said:
Okay this is the text of the bill and I honestly recommend anyone who ever reads about such and such piece of legislation actually go and look at the legislation, it's not always so difficult to understand



Deliberately withholding information about a foetus is not involved here, the major concern is more that there is now a greater burden of proof on plaintiffs in such a civil proceeding.
Click to expand...

Then this bill is useless and you have to wonder why it's here in the first place. What were people sueing for before then? Not anyone's fault but let's sue and get shitloads of money, and that worked?
But then again, this is Happy-go-sueing-land we're talking about.
 
Raist said:
Then this bill is useless and you have to wonder why it's here in the first place. What were people sueing for before then? Not anyone's fault but let's sue and get shitloads of money, and that worked?
But then again, this is Happy-go-sueing-land we're talking about.
Click to expand...
In malpractice lawsuits? Hell fucking yes. It's not necessarily that it wasn't anyone's fault, but shotgun lawsuits are prevalent in the field and end up hurting multiple doctors who had nothing to do with what happened.
 
SoulPlaya said:
People, relax. Doctors will still be sued if they lied to you. Read the bill.

Shit, I really wish we could get REAL tort reform one day, though, unrelated to this.

EDIT: BTW, enough with the ignorance in this thread. I know hugely religious doctors who treat all their patients equally and don't let their beliefs get into things. Mindless speculation and ignorant accusations in this thread are just fucking stupid. So many doctors these days are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and they don't let their beliefs get in the way.
Click to expand...

It's really a shame. As atheists and rationalists we should be gathering evidence before drawing any conclusions, not just piling on because something seems like it might be realter to religion.
 
jkoch said:
Are you sure this is actually happening? I honestly don't know, but it seems far more likely that a wrongful birth lawsuit would arise from a doctor not informing a pregnant woman about a defect due to human error or failure to disgnose; than a doctor mailiciously withholding information because he's afraid that the woman might have an abortion.
Click to expand...
That's what, the article made it sound like, the wording of the actual bill makes it seem like I may be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Your go too treatment?
36
2K
mitch1971 replied
Headphones volume too low with Bluetooth when connected to TV, also audio delay with Xbox
16
872
Stafford replied
Moscow goes back to pagers and paper maps
News 
36
703
MrTroubleMaker replied
Roblox employee's 'day in the life' video goes viral
2
61
820
Boss Mog replied
When you redeem a code for xbox
18
341
uncreativename replied
Top Bottom