Posted on 03/07/2006 3:31:06 PM PST by Gelato
Ohio justices rule parents can sue for fetal test error
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Parents can sue a doctor if a genetic screening misses a severe or fatal condition that would have caused them to seek an abortion, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The 4-3 decision limited such lawsuits to costs associated with a pregnancy and birth, saying such parents could not sue for pain-and-suffering damages or repayment of the costs of raising a disabled child.
The decision was a partial victory for a Kentucky couple who sued a Cincinnati obstetrics practice and hospital that provided genetic counseling and told them their fetus did not have a genetic disorder that the mother carried. But the 8-year-old boy has the disorder and can’t speak or crawl.
The finding overruled a lower-court decision that Richard and Helen Schirmer could sue for the costs of raising their disabled son.
Justice Maureen O’Connor, writing for the majority, noted that the Schirmers had indicated they would have obtained an abortion if they had received the correct diagnosis. As a result, she said they could not sue for costs above those of raising a child without a disability.
The case was the first time Ohio’s justices had issued a definitive ruling on a claim of “wrongful birth.” A handful of states allow such claims by parents seeking compensation for the financial burden of caring for a severely disabled child or the emotional trauma of watching a baby die shortly after birth.
Attorney Frank Woodside, who represents Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, said the decision was correct.
Doctors had no involvement in the actual defect, he said, and the law doesn’t allow damages if the disabling condition existed from the point of conception
"This is why doctors today routinely advise abortion for women with any chance whatever of a problem pregnancy."
Nl doctors can't counter sue, but if they are smart or have smart lawyers, they will take it to the SC
"Since the mother knew that she carried a gene for a horrible condition, adoption may have been the better decision for this couple."
I agree, how horribly selfish to KNOW this is a possibility, yet choose to conceive human beings and figure you'll just get rid of the defective ones until the "keeper" comes along. Disgusting.
Unreal.
"Parents can sue a doctor if a genetic screening misses a severe or fatal condition that would have caused them to seek an abortion, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Friday. The 4-3 decision limited such lawsuits to costs associated with a pregnancy and birth, saying such parents could not sue for pain-and-suffering damages or repayment of the costs of raising a disabled child."
This makes zero sense.
If the doctor is liable, he's liable for ALL of the consequential damages.
If he's NOT liable because an abortion would have resulted, then he shouldn't be liable for ANY of the damages!
This is another Sandra Day O'Dip$#!# opinion. Has she got relatives in Ohio?
Bump to everything you said (including doing the same thing with our child's tests)!
Heck, someone sued Satan once....
Artificial means of birth control would not be sold if pregancy was not considered to be a health disorder, at least by some people. Consider that, in one room of a hospital, a doctor is delivering a baby, while in another room of the same hospital, another doctor is dismembering a baby in its mother's womb.
As a society, we hold contradictory views regarding pregnancy as a state of health, which is to say, we hold contradictory views regarding the value of human life. The idea of "wrongful death" logically follows from the idea that pregnancy is a health disorder.
The next logical step is to kill the child now, since the court obviously believes that the child would have been better off dead. They're only lacking the guts. But give them time.
Heck, someone sued Satan once....
Well, I'm sure he deserved it.
My sister-in-law recently was told that her unborn child had a marker for Downs syndrome, which turned out to be false. I wonder how many babies are killed by false positives?
Doctors had no involvement in the actual defect, he said, and the law doesn’t allow damages if the disabling condition existed from the point of conception.
But wait! I thought nothing but a worthless clump of cells existed at the point of conception, certainly not a person with a "disabling condition".
Good! I have seen this take place and put the girls in precarious situations but the girls chose to keep their child. Guess what!? The babies were fine and not one thing wrong with them.
If they had listened to these doctors and their test they would have aborted a perfectly healthy baby.
Hard to believe, but the parents are indeed saying that for the severely disabled, death is preferable to life. Short distance to the "he would WANT to die" argument used to murder Terri Schiavo.
God will judge our nation on how we treat "the least of these."
That caught my eye right away. But, I differ with your conclusion.
The Shirmers were prepared to pay for raising a normal child. They would have aborted an abnormal child. Therefore, they should only be compensated for the difference in raising an abnormal child over a normal one.
But they were suing over the incorrect reading of the screening test. Had the doctor read the test correctly, the Schirmers would have aborted their baby and been out only the cost of the abortion. By reading the test incorrectly, the Schirmers continued with the pregnancy, and thus had to pay for prenatal care for the remaining months, the cost of childbirth, and the cost of raising and caring for a disabled child for the rest of his life. If the judges assign fault to the doctor for reading the test results incorrectly, then compensation would be the costs that were born by the Schirmers after continuing with the pregnancy minus what an abortion would have cost. Such result would be immoral and morbid, but it would be the logical conclusion of assigning fault to the doctor in a nation in which abortion is legal.
I think the only scenario in which the Schirmers would be compensated for the cost difference between raising a diabled child and raising a normal child would be if the doctor didn't merely read the test results incorrectly, but somehow caused the baby's disability, and if the Schirmers nevertheless kept their baby. In such case, the doctor would be the cause of the Schirmers having to pay extra to raise and care for their child, but would only be liable for the extra cost, not the total cost, since the Schirmers would have had to paid for raising their baby anyhow had the doctor not screwed up. Unfortunately, courts such as the one that ruled that the doctor was liable for not warning the parents that their child was "imperfect" would probably say that the parents in this new hypothetical could have aborted their baby when they found out that the doctor had caused the disability, and by not doing so they waived their right to compensation for any amount over and above the cost of an abortion. When the law allows abortion as a "choice," it will eventually be turned into a "duty." People who say they are "pro-choice" on abortion should keep that in mind.
Or if she has her tubes tied, gets pregnant and carries the baby to term unknowingly (there are stories like that), then I can see where some would say the doctor is liable.(Again, not that I agree.)
But the argument can be made in the above case that the couple chose to have a child, and to abort only if the child was not normal. The couple was prepared to pay the cost of raising a normal child, had the test result been correct. The doctor should pay the difference.
That said, I do see your point. If, for example, the parents only had enough money to raise one child, so they therefore wanted that child to be normal, fine. Being forced to pay for raising an abnormal child precludes that possibility.
But the whole discussion is obscene. If there's a potential problem, adopt. If you choose to get pregnant, then you take what God gives you. Negligence is unacceptable, but doctors do make mistakes -- choose one wisely.
Obstetricians are being sued out of existence.
If there ever was a "miscarriage" of justice......
"But the whole discussion is obscene. If there's a potential problem, adopt. If you choose to get pregnant, then you take what God gives you. Negligence is unacceptable, but doctors do make mistakes -- choose one wisely.
Obstetricians are being sued out of existence."
Yes you do.
Over seas there have been lawsuits by disabled folks against both the doctors and parents for them being born....so assume nothing.
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.