Parents sue doctor after taking *rabbi's* advice...

[AuntCloud]

That is one strange court decision. Here's the link, in Hebrew:

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4278815,00.html

(Couldn't find the translation - if anyone has a translation gizmo, it would be much appreciated).

Here are the Cliff notes:

1. 10 years ago, a woman got pregnant while she had an IUD in. Her doctor wasn't able to take the IUD out.

2. Her doctor told the couple *twice* that he recommends terminating the pregnancy because of a high risk of an adverse outcome.

3. The couple went for a second opinion - with a rabbi. He told them not to terminate.

4. The baby was born at 27 weeks and has serious developmental issues.

5. The parents sued... the doctor. They claimed he wasn't clear on the implications of keeping a pregnancy with an IUD in.

6. The courts decided that the parents were probably right. The doctor lost.

The head... it explodes. The comments to the story say that it's a recent worrying trend of listening to rabbis over doctors. One commentor said that traditionally, in Judaism doctors get the utmost respect and until recently rabbis were adamant that people listen to their doctors in anything health-related. Now, of course, everyone gets hyper-religious and common sense flies out the window, along with realizing that maybe the best person to give a second opinion on a dicey medical issue is another doctor, not a rabbi.

[ilovetchotchkes]

That is one strange court decision. Here's the link, in Hebrew:

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4278815,00.html

(Couldn't find the translation - if anyone has a translation gizmo, it would be much appreciated).

Here are the Cliff notes:

1. 10 years ago, a woman got pregnant while she had an IUD in. Her doctor wasn't able to take the IUD out.

2. Her doctor told the couple *twice* that he recommends terminating the pregnancy because of a high risk of an adverse outcome.

3. The couple went for a second opinion - with a rabbi. He told them not to terminate.

4. The baby was born at 27 weeks and has serious developmental issues.

5. The parents sued... the doctor. They claimed he wasn't clear on the implications of keeping a pregnancy with an IUD in.

6. The courts decided that the parents were probably right. The doctor lost.

The head... it explodes. The comments to the story say that it's a recent worrying trend of listening to rabbis over doctors. One commentor said that traditionally, in Judaism doctors get the utmost respect and until recently rabbis were adamant that people listen to their doctors in anything health-related. Now, of course, everyone gets hyper-religious and common sense flies out the window, along with realizing that maybe the best person to give a second opinion on a dicey medical issue is another doctor, not a rabbi.

Yeah, my rabbi (albiet Reform) would tell me to get my ass to planned parenthood.

[emmiedahl]

I usually take my cousin's advice when I need rabbinical assistance because she is easy to get a hold of. She would be like, "Well, what does your doctor say? You know my doctorate is not in medicine, right?"

There might be an addendum about the Jewish mandate to preserve the mother's physical and emotional health above that of the fetus.

[Sola]

http://snipurl.com/24xuh0a

Used google translate to get the english version. Probably wont be entirely accurate though.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I used Google translate:

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ml&act=url

Google translate isn't the best, but you can get the basic idea.

It sounds like this was a case about the extent of informed consent. It's not enough for a doctor to say "I recommend X". The doctor needs to provide enough information for the patient to be able to make an informed decision, and needs to be able to document it. I know that I had to document my informed refusal when I turned down the screening blood test for Down Syndrome.

The fact that they listened to the rabbi is really just a side issue. A religious couple often won't terminate simply because the birth control failed, but will get the go-ahead from a rabbi if a doctor provides information to confirm that the pregnancy would be high-risk. I know the A Mother In Israel blog previously had some entries about how Israeli doctors can something be over-zealous in recommending therapeutic abortions, so I can see how a mere recommendation to abort might not be persuasive to this family, while a more specific warning ("complications may include extremely premature birth in X% of cases, which can be lead to....") may have changed their minds and convinced them that this was a genuine risk.

[SpeakNow]

But according to what I learned in Hebrew school

"Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life."

[2xx1xy1JD]

But according to what I learned in Hebrew school

"Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life."

Exactly. If the parents bring in medical evidence that continuing the pregnancy carries a genuine increased risk, an abortion would generally be permitted. It sounds like the doctor in this case may have given a recommendation, but not enough of the facts that would support that recommendation in order for the parents (and other advisors, such as the rabbi) to make a truly informed decision.

[Guest Anonymous]

Exactly. If the parents bring in medical evidence that continuing the pregnancy carries a genuine increased risk, an abortion would generally be permitted. It sounds like the doctor in this case may have given a recommendation, but not enough of the facts that would support that recommendation in order for the parents (and other advisors, such as the rabbi) to make a truly informed decision.

Where is the parents' responsibility here? If my doctor gave me a recommendation to abort I would ask a ton of questions way before I went to my rabbi to see what he thought about my situation. There has to be a line between giving a recommendation and browbeating someone. If he told them he thought they should abort, and they declined, how far can he ethically press them to do so? He told them more than once that he thought they should terminate and they decided not to. He can't reasonably or legally force them to do it. It seems from the article that the doctor said he gave them in depth information, the parents claim that he didn't. What they don't seem to dispute is that he did recommend termination two times.

I think it's ridiculous to blame the doctor here.

[2xx1xy1JD]

To win a medical negligence case, a doctor needs to prove not just that a recommendation was made, but that informed consent/informed refusal was given. This means fully explaining (and documenting, so that you cover your ass) not just WHAT is being recommended, but WHY.

[Guest Anonymous]

To win a medical negligence case, a doctor needs to prove not just that a recommendation was made, but that informed consent/informed refusal was given. This means fully explaining (and documenting, so that you cover your ass) not just WHAT is being recommended, but WHY.

It's no surprise that we disagree, it's not the first time.

I doubt that the parents asked why and the doctor refused to explain. I do feel that you have a tendency to engage in apologetics for the religious Jewish perspective when related subjects come up here.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The article don't say that the doctor REFUSED to explain. That's not the legal standard in medical negligence cases. Legally speaking, the onus is on the doctor to fully explain the risks and benefits. That's why hospitals have you sign multi-page waivers for some procedures.

I do provide additional information on Jewish AND legal subjects if it comes up, esp. if it's not something that the average poster would know. I'll also snark when warranted. I know a few posters here have seen me take on the crazy at imamother in the past. I'm always up for a good debate, but like it to be based on fact.

[Guest Anonymous]

The article don't say that the doctor REFUSED to explain. That's not the legal standard in medical negligence cases. Legally speaking, the onus is on the doctor to fully explain the risks and benefits. That's why hospitals have you sign multi-page waivers for some procedures.

I do provide additional information on Jewish AND legal subjects if it comes up, esp. if it's not something that the average poster would know. I'll also snark when warranted. I know a few posters here have seen me take on the crazy at imamother in the past. I'm always up for a good debate, but like it to be based on fact.

I bow to your expertise in the legal aspects of the case, I couldn't begin to speak to them.

I'm not trying to give legal insight, I'm just having an opinon based on the article. In my opinion, it's ridiculous to blame the doctor.