The wrongful birth lawsuit does not say that the medical practitioners caused the disease or disability, which would be a valid reason to sue. Instead the wrongful birth lawsuit claims the that doctor failed to inform the parents of the illness or disability of the child and that had they known, they would have aborted their child. In other words, the parents are saying we wish our child was dead. Because he or she is not, the someone has to pay. Parents like this should have their children taken away, they are monsters.
1 posted on
03/06/2012 4:20:06 PM PST by
wagglebee
To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on
03/06/2012 4:20:56 PM PST by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
3 posted on
03/06/2012 4:22:13 PM PST by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
Suits like these should be tossed out—along with the lawyer.
Maybe one day they will find a way to find if the child will be gay and kill it.
It’s a strange world we live in where right and wrong becomes so confused by the liberals.
4 posted on
03/06/2012 4:24:08 PM PST by
Venturer
To: wagglebee
Stinking plaintiff lawyers are a plague on this nation.
5 posted on
03/06/2012 4:24:10 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
To: wagglebee
8 posted on
03/06/2012 4:51:02 PM PST by
yldstrk
( My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: wagglebee
No one forced them to keep it.
9 posted on
03/06/2012 5:01:18 PM PST by
Morgana
(I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
To: wagglebee
I hate to be arguing to the contrary when trial lawyers are involved, but informed consent is pretty much meaningless if one is not informed about ALL of the potential outcomes in a medical procedure, even a birth.
If these parents specifically sought genetic counseling and the odds of a Down's Syndrome baby were fudged, obfuscated, or outright not discussed, then the doctor involved has violated his or her duty to the patient to salve his own conscience or to follow a hospital policy.
To: wagglebee
What the parents would have done or did not do is immaterial. The doctor was under a professional and moral obligation to tell them everything about the health of their baby. There is no no greater abomination than abortion but this doctor did not practice up to community standards.
11 posted on
03/06/2012 5:20:18 PM PST by
Cyman
To: wagglebee
That poor child. They are not trustworthy parents - mentally unstable to want to kill their child.
To: wagglebee
Posts 10 & 11 have the stink of what trial lawyers say to too gullible juries to extract million$ out of the health money that could go better for treatment instead of yachts & Boca Rattan mansions for trial lawyers. No medical or surgical procedure has a 100% success rate and the forms and explanations to patients already say that. The concept that these odious parents can sue because their baby disappoints them makes most of us sick.
16 posted on
03/06/2012 7:03:44 PM PST by
RicocheT
(Eat the rich only if you're certain it's your last meal)
To: wagglebee
Parents like this should have their children taken away, they are monsters. They didn't have to keep the child. Adoption is always an option. While I agree with your sentiments completely, even from a completely amoral position on the issue, the fact that they could have put the child up for adoption should preclude them from getting ANY money out of it. They CHOSE to keep that child, nobody forced them. Now they've just made her a cash cow, which further disqualifies them from being considered good parents.
20 posted on
03/06/2012 8:20:18 PM PST by
metmom
(For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson