Arizona 'wrongful birth' law.

[emmiedahl]

But why is society so happy and eager to sue?

Is the new motto, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a quick buck?"

Can someone sue the government for not giving everyone the "American Dream"?

What is wrong with having a disabled child and saying J'celle's line... "every child is a blessing?" Instead of saying, "Oh someone screwed up and now we are sueing because we are victims (and we can)."

(I bet i am going to get blasted now..) :tools-hammerdrill:

I agree we are way too eager to sue.

But if parents made bad medical choices because their provider withheld important information, that is IMO cause for a lawsuit.

I would raise a disabled child who had any hope of a quality life. I have a relative child who has 1p36 deletion and I believe she is perfect in every way. She just has to work harder for the same accomplishments. I would probably not choose to give birth to a child who had no hope of survival and would suffer greatly in their short life though, and as the parent I deserve to make that decision.

[Witsec7]

Medical malpractice sometimes leaves people with huge financial burdens reds. I'm sure that you would never sue a medical provider if the left you or your children permanently disabled and requiring ongoing care. You would just roll with the punches would't you? :roll:

[tropaka]

re ivf - Canadians hop the border for it (sex selective)

[reds]

Medical malpractice sometimes leaves people with huge financial burdens reds. I'm sure that you would never sue a medical provider if the left you or your children permanently disabled and requiring ongoing care. You would just roll with the punches would't you? :roll:

It wouldnt be my very first thought.

It just seems that common sense, not related to the topic at hand, and personal accountability are suddenly not applicable when someone can be sued for it instead.

[formergothardite]

So I looked up the McDonalds case that always gets brought up as an example of a silly lawsuit. The woman had third degree burns over 16% of her body and had to have skin grafts. McDonalds had their coffee heated way higher than they were supposed to and they knew it could cause that sort of burns, but they decided to keep it that hot anyway. And the woman only sued for $20,000 to help cover her medical bills since she ended up with two years of massive amounts of burn treatments. I don't think that is frivolous, do you reds?

[Witsec7]

It wouldnt be my very first thought.

It just seems that common sense, not related to the topic at hand, and personal accountability are suddenly not applicable when someone can be sued for it instead.

In most cases it isn't the first thought, no one said it was, except you. When folks sign consent with a medical provider they usually agree to a mandatory mediation should something go wrong. Thats step one. In a great many states prior to a trial for a tort claim (I'm using med. mal. cases here) the court then requires a period of mediation, usually after discovery. Thats step two. If a settlement cannot be agreed upon during mandatory mediation, then it moves up to step three. Litigation. This process doesn't take place overnight, and often many years pass before these issues move to trial. Be aware too, that its not just an individual against a hosp. or Dr. The individual is up against the hospitals lawyers, the doctors lawyers, the hospitals med mal ins. lawyers and the Drs. med mal ins. lawyers.

[Austin]

I agree we are way too eager to sue.

But if parents made bad medical choices because their provider withheld important information, that is IMO cause for a lawsuit.

I would raise a disabled child who had any hope of a quality life. I have a relative child who has 1p36 deletion and I believe she is perfect in every way. She just has to work harder for the same accomplishments. I would probably not choose to give birth to a child who had no hope of survival and would suffer greatly in their short life though, and as the parent I deserve to make that decision.

I agree. The cost of caring for a severely disabled child, over the child's lifetime, can be way more than many people can handle. The parents should at least have all of the information to make a decision that's best for them.

[reds]

$$2.7 million in punitive damages is excessive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

[Witsec7]

$$2.7 million in punitive damages is excessive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

I would prefer you to address the aspects of medical mal practice I noted in my post above. I will reference them again below.

experiencedd wrote:

Medical malpractice sometimes leaves people with huge financial burdens reds. I'm sure that you would never sue a medical provider if the left you or your children permanently disabled and requiring ongoing care. You would just roll with the punches would't you?

reds:

It wouldnt be my very first thought.

It just seems that common sense, not related to the topic at hand, and personal accountability are suddenly not applicable when someone can be sued for it instead.

exp.

In most cases it isn't the first thought, no one said it was, except you. When folks sign consent with a medical provider they usually agree to a mandatory mediation should something go wrong. Thats step one. In a great many states prior to a trial for a tort claim (I'm using med. mal. cases here) the court then requires a period of mediation, usually after discovery. Thats step two. If a settlement cannot be agreed upon during mandatory mediation, then it moves up to step three. Litigation. This process doesn't take place overnight, and often many years pass before these issues move to trial. Be aware too, that its not just an individual against a hosp. or Dr. The individual is up against the hospitals lawyers, the doctors lawyers, the hospitals med mal ins. lawyers and the Drs. med mal ins. lawyers.

[Austin]

$$2.7 million in punitive damages is excessive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

Firstly, that was a jury decision, so take it up with them.

Secondly, that is not remotely what she received.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

[Constance Vigilance]

$$2.7 million in punitive damages is excessive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v. ... estaurants

Have you actually read this? McDonald's refused to offer more than $800 for $10,500 in medical bills caused by them serving coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Liebeck sued for $20,000 to cover present and future medical bills. The jury awarded the $2.7million damages, which was reduced by the judge, and then settled out of court before appeal (presumably for less).

Your problem is with the jury, not the person suing. Also apparently with comprehension.

ETA: Snap with Austin.

[formergothardite]

Plus, McDonalds could have originally settled for the $20,000 she wanted, but they refused, and put themselves in front of jury. Plus, as Austin pointed out she didn't actually get $2.7 million dollars.

ETA: Dang it, CV just said this. :lol:

[reds]

So I looked up the McDonalds case that always gets brought up as an example of a silly lawsuit. The woman had third degree burns over 16% of her body and had to have skin grafts. McDonalds had their coffee heated way higher than they were supposed to and they knew it could cause that sort of burns, but they decided to keep it that hot anyway. And the woman only sued for $20,000 to help cover her medical bills since she ended up with two years of massive amounts of burn treatments. I don't think that is frivolous, do you reds?

It sure isnt the $20,000 that you said it was.

As for medical malpractice, I am from Canada. It happens up here but I have never heard of anyone sueing a doctor for it. Friend one, baby died in utero because doctor wouldnt schedule a delivery.

Friend two, forceps used, baby with massive trama, perminately disabled.

Friend three, forceps used on her birth, massive damage to all nerves on right side of face.

Mother, diagonsed with heartburn and released from hospital. Pharmasist caught that it was heart attack and sent her back.

I am sure each one of these cases could have been worth money if someone wanted to sue a doctor. Or felt that something bad happened to them so suddenly they have won the lottery.

[Austin]

It sure isnt the $20,000 that you said it was.

As for medical malpractice, I am from Canada. It happens up here but I have never heard of anyone sueing a doctor for it. Friend one, baby died in utero because doctor wouldnt schedule a delivery.

Friend two, forceps used, baby with massive trama, perminately disabled.

Friend three, forceps used on her birth, massive damage to all nerves on right side of face.

Mother, diagonsed with heartburn and released from hospital. Pharmasist caught that it was heart attack and sent her back.

I am sure each one of these cases could have been worth money if someone wanted to sue a doctor. Or felt that something bad happened to them so suddenly they have won the lottery.

Reading comprehension fail. FG did not say that's what the woman received; she said that's what the woman initially sued for. There's a difference.

[reds]

I guess Josh should hire himself a lawyer and sue McDonalds and Nestea for making him fat and causing his future medical problems.

[formergothardite]

Yeah, I never said that was all she got, that was what she originally sued for. So it wasn't like she started off saying I want millions, the jury decided that. And I don't know about everyone else, but when I order a drink and it says "Caution: Hot" I don't expect third degree burns, skin grafts and several years of being disabled if I spill it on myself.

[Constance Vigilance]

Ah, I get it, you're going for wilfully obtuse.

Everyone else covered the $20,000 / your inability to read English when it suits you, so I'll cover this one:

As for medical malpractice, I am from Canada.

And there's no MASSIVE difference between the US and Canadian healthcare systems regarding the financial cost of a disabled child that would explain why Americans might be more likely to sue for malpractice, right? I guess you and your friends are just better people.

[Swamptribe]

If thats what you're looking for, I'm sure you'll find it. I pretty much restrict myself to print media, and most of the law suits covered (on the sites I view) significantly impact others. The hot coffee Mickey D's litigation is decades old btw.

Frankly wrongful birth is getting a lot of press lately and you can thank the regressive republicans for that.

Look up the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. It's not what you think it was. Numerous states had, for years, issued warnings to McDonald's that their coffee was kept at too high a temperature. McDonald still refused to lower the temperature. The person who sued did indeed have to suffer skin grafts and a lot of pain. Over a problem McDonald's have been aware of for YEARS. That was why the award was so high (later lowered) it was punitive to McDonald's corporation for ignoring the problem for so long.

http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous- ... revisited/

[reds]

Ah, I get it, you're going for wilfully obtuse.

Everyone else covered the $20,000 / your inability to read English when it suits you, so I'll cover this one:

And there's no MASSIVE difference between the US and Canadian healthcare systems regarding the financial cost of a disabled child that would explain why Americans might be more likely to sue for malpractice, right? I guess you and your friends are just better people.

No i just guess it's just our ebil socialist healthcare and programs to help the handicapped and other people in need.

[YPestis]

The thing that infuriates me about this bill is that it shows so little understanding of what prenatal testing does.

Rick Sanatorum, with a disabled child, should know better than anyone the importance of genetic testing!! Prenatal testing isn't just to warn parents they should "abort the child" (!!), it's to give parents time to PREPARE for the possible birth of children with medical needs! It's to allow the neonatalogists and pediatricians to medically prepare for possible after birth medical procedures.

Take Down Syndrome....you think parents are better off knowing at birth that their child have a congenital heart condition? Or have duoduenal atresia? Because both require medical attention pretty soon after birth. You think suddenly popping that on parents, who may be financially stressed or have other children is a GOOD idea?

Somehow, these idiots think it's better to deliberately surprise parents with a $2 million hospital visit. Prenatal testing isn't just for abortion, it's for preparing and educating the parents on how to manage and care for special needs children. It would be like an adoption system whereby the adoptive parents aren't allowed to know if they will get a special needs child because it may prevent the adoption from going through. Does anyone think that's a great idea?

You know what's going to happen if a doctor actually not tell parents they have a disabled child? Some parents will be resentful that they were manipulated into thinking they have a healthy child, will not care for the child, will neglect the child, and the scenario will only end with CPS involved.

From the medical side, I can tell you that NO physician in their right mind will avoid telling patients they need a life saving abortion. Something like an ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and medical indication is almost always termination. No state medical board will ever let that doctor say otherwise with that bill.

Seriously, I live in one of the reddest state in the country and I've had a conservative OBGYN during my OB rotation and he has performed and taught us the standard practice is termination in cases when the mother's life is affected. There's not a single hospital or medical board who will say otherwise. This bill certainly does not cover a doctor's butt in this case (and shouldn't!).

I also can't imagine a physician will lie to patients if their child will have a genetic abnormality. It's almost a sacred law among physicians that patients are fully informed.

My understanding of this bill is that a physician, deciding that there is no MEDICAL need to tell parents about their child, can avoid a lawsuit for not saying so. I think parents have a good case if their child turns out to require extensive specialist followup and surgeries. Then, the physician is not acting in the best interest of either fetus or patient by hiding from the parents this issue.

I strongly believe the above statement and I strongly believe, given the litigious state of medical practice, no OBGYN will lie or hide a genetic problem from their patients. There are too many ways to get sued. I'm outraged by this bill but not worried, because it won't change a single thing. It will, however, make those stupid idiot lawmakers feel better because they will think they 'saved a life' or some junk.

[Witsec7]

No i just guess it's just our ebil socialist healthcare and programs to help the handicapped and other people in need.

Ah the improvement in your learning curve is noted. Now to further edify you as to why a malpractice suit isn't a parents 'first thought' as you have so skillfully misrepresented. This is how it works for most of America.

In most cases it isn't the first thought, no one said it was, except you. When folks sign consent with a medical provider they usually agree to a mandatory mediation should something go wrong. Thats step one. In a great many states prior to a trial for a tort claim (I'm using med. mal. cases here) the court then requires a period of mediation, usually after discovery. Thats step two. If a settlement cannot be agreed upon during mandatory mediation, then it moves up to step three. Litigation. This process doesn't take place overnight, and often many years pass before these issues move to trial. Be aware too, that its not just an individual against a hosp. or Dr. The individual is up against the hospitals lawyers, the doctors lawyers, the hospitals med mal ins. lawyers and the Drs. med mal ins. lawyers.

[reds]

:pray: Thank you o' wise one.

Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

[Swamptribe]

Idaho

Georgia

Kentucky

Minnesota

Michigan

Utah

[Witsec7]

:pray: Thank you o' wise one.

Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

It was apparent that you were woefully ignorant on how this type of litigation proceeded in the US.

You're quite welcome btw.

[reds]

It was apparent that you were woefully ignorant on how this type of litigation proceeded in the US.

You're quite welcome btw.

I fully admit I am ignorant about how litigation works.

To me, it seems that the answer to anything in the US is get a lawyer and get paid.