Posted on 12/26/2014 6:36:54 PM PST by Morgana
The waiting time in CA to buy a Gun violates my Constitutional Rights. Will a Liberal Judge stand up for me?
Almost seems like allowing one to see a baby before its birth and then aborting it would border on “accessory to murder”
No surprise there, I guess.
The answer is LAWYERS ,, rewrite the law to cover informed consent for any procedure not just abortion so that if an x-ray , CT or ultrasound is used in diagnosis and planning the procedure then the patient must be shown the data prior to the procedure ,,, also start filing lawsuits against abortionists for the damage they inflict ... why should they get a free ride on 99% of their malpractice ... no other doctor gets the secrecy veil...
Actually couple years ago when my cousin going have her first baby she ask the doctor for ultrasound he didn’t want give to her but change his mind
I think he is one of the doctors that don’t understand about technology he grudngely gave the ultrasound she post it on her facebook page
A simple tweak to existing law is all that’s needed to unleash the ambulance chasers... Don’t re-invent the wheel. Just sue the cr*p out of them stating gross negligence and ignoring the right to informed consent by not providing accurate and complete information.. one or two lawsuits a year per abortionist would put them out of business..
*******************
NORTH CAROLINA
§ 90-21.19. Liability limit for noneconomic damages.
.......
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, there shall be no limit on the amount of noneconomic damages for which judgment may be entered against a defendant if the trier of fact finds both of the following:
(1) The plaintiff suffered disfigurement, loss of use of part of the body, permanent injury or death.
(2) The defendant’s acts or failures, which are the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, were committed in reckless disregard of the rights of others, grossly negligent, fraudulent, intentional or with malice.§ 90-21.19. Liability limit for noneconomic damages.
*******************
FLORIDA
766.103 Florida Medical Consent Law.—
(1) This section shall be known and cited as the “Florida Medical Consent Law.”
(2) In any medical treatment activity not covered by s. 768.13, entitled the “Good Samaritan Act,” this act shall govern.
(3) No recovery shall be allowed in any court in this state against any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, dentist licensed under chapter 466, advanced registered nurse practitioner certified under s. 464.012, or physician assistant licensed under s. 458.347 or s. 459.022 in an action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a patient without his or her informed consent when:
(a)1. The action of the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced registered nurse practitioner, or physician assistant in obtaining the consent of the patient or another person authorized to give consent for the patient was in accordance with an accepted standard of medical practice among members of the medical profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar medical community as that of the person treating, examining, or operating on the patient for whom the consent is obtained; and
2. A reasonable individual, from the information provided by the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced registered nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, under the circumstances, would have a general understanding of the procedure, the medically acceptable alternative procedures or treatments, and the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures, which are recognized among other physicians, osteopathic physicians, chiropractic physicians, podiatric physicians, or dentists in the same or similar community who perform similar treatments or procedures; or
(b) The patient would reasonably, under all the surrounding circumstances, have undergone such treatment or procedure had he or she been advised by the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced registered nurse practitioner, or physician assistant in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a).
(4)(a) A consent which is evidenced in writing and meets the requirements of subsection (3) shall, if validly signed by the patient or another authorized person, raise a rebuttable presumption of a valid consent.
(b) A valid signature is one which is given by a person who under all the surrounding circumstances is mentally and physically competent to give consent.
History.—s. 11, ch. 75-9; s. 21, ch. 85-175; s. 1150, ch. 97-102; s. 62, ch. 97-264; ss. 230, 297, ch. 98-166; s. 2, ch. 2007-176.
Note.—Former s. 768.132; s. 768.46.
Great idea.
Liberals think it’s better for the Abortionist to LIE about the Fetus being a mere clump of Cells than expose the TRUTH to the Girl / Woman who is about to undergo a Surgical Procedure that would kill a Viable Human Being.
Informed Choice = Informed Consent. Remember, a fact to a Liberal is like sunshine to a Vampire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.