Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woman sues over son born disabled 'wrongful life' would have aborted pregnancy.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   


WEST PALM BEACH — With the heartbreaking image of a small boy born with no arms and one leg etched into their minds, a Palm Beach County jury will return Friday morning to deciding whether to order a Palm Beach Gardens obstetrician to pay $9 million for the lifelong care he will need

...

During a roughly two-week-long trial that ended Wednesday, Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana claimed they would have never have brought their son, Bryan, into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Dr. Marie Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.

www.palmbeachpost.com...


So what are your thoughts on this? This lawsuit could set a precedence for future cases. Should doctors be held responsible for children born with disabilities they didn't catch during ultrasound or other tests?

I don't see how doctors can be held responsible for children born with problems, it's not their fault but genetics and nature. Seems like we are entering voluntary eugenics here.
edit on 8-9-2011 by IlluminatusOculus33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
gosh,

apparently 'a body not even a mother would love'


which reminds me.. mother sheeple - sheesh!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I say, go for it, the couple have the right to sue for compensation, how can the doctor forget to tell them that their unborn child had deformities.

The child will need care for life so let the doctor pay for it. At least the child life will be comfortable.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
one of the things they do during a pregnancy is test for certain genetic markers. I always wondered what I would do if things came up that might compromise my babies quality of life. Thankfully I never had to make that kind of choice but there are those who do. Does quantity of life beat out quality? Sure, there are those who believe in life at all costs but what if that life is lived in agony? What if that life requires taxing the hell out of someone else's to keep it going. Its a tricky argument thats bound to get pretty heated.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
If you read the article she declined to run a genetic test. She should be at fault not him.

"He argued that the couple rejected amniocentesis, which might have revealed the abnormalities. The couple rejected it because they were told that there was a 1 in 500 chance that removing amniotic fluid for testing would cause a miscarriage.

Mejia testified that a genetic counselor she saw after an ultrasound detected a possibility Bryan would be born with Down's Syndrome told her there was a 99.9 percent chance he wouldn't have the form of mental retardation. Rather than needlessly risk losing the child, she and her husband decided not to have amniocentesis."



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The couple refused other tests that would have shown abnormalities in their child but at greater risk of miscarriage. Since they refused it will be hard to hold the clinic responsible even if their ultrasounds were not administered properly.

Since this couple was so concerned they should have taken every precaution available to them and not relied on an inconclusive test to determine their childs health.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33
 

I don't see how doctors can be held responsible for children born with problems, it's not their fault but genetics and nature. Seems like we are entering voluntary eugenics here.

It's definitely a tough case, but I'm inclined to agree. Should we go back and sue all the doctors in the past who were involved in the births of people even worse off than this?

Who got sued for all the thalidomide babies (disclaimer - I'm ignorant here, perhaps someone was)? Who's getting sued for all the deformed babies being born in Iraq because of our use of depleted uranium?

What about all the other people who have been born with similar or worse deformities? Do any of them wish they would have been aborted instead of born deformed? They're out there.

Way too much gray area here, with guilt on all sides over a whole range of semi-related issues. Perhaps doctors should be forced to re-check everything ad nauseum since something can likely always crop up that isn't checked or uncovered in normal processes.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I say, go for it, the couple have the right to sue for compensation, how can the doctor forget to tell them that their unborn child had deformities.

The child will need care for life so let the doctor pay for it. At least the child life will be comfortable.



yeah go for it. if truth sets one free,

one day the child will learn of unwanted and would have been aborted.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I can understand not wanting to do the amnio. Its painful as well as dangerous...but triple screen testing is just blood work and can also detect abnormalities.

if its truly a concern you take whatever tests you need to, I guess. The hard part is when the results come back and your fears are made real.
edit on 8-9-2011 by irsuccubus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
These are the sort of lawsuits that make it impossible for us to get this country's health care costs down. It breaks my heart that this family has to go through such an emotionally tough time..it breaks my heart even more that this child might learn that their own parents not only didnt want them because theu werent born perfect. Sounds like the parents have had every opportunity to perform certain tests that could have ruled out deformity but chose not to. If it was of a paramount concern one would reason that they would exhaust all options of finding out the health status of their child. They didn't. Thanks for being part of the problem, Florida parents.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I dunno.. I mean, it would be one thing if there was indeed evidence of there being missing arms and legs and the doctor obfuscated or obscured it, then yeah, sue the doctor. But in this case, based solely on the article, there does not appear to be any indication that the abnormalities were evident. Seems odd, but stranger things have happened, I imagine.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33
 


These abnormalities would 100% sure appear on an ultrasound, it's impossible to miss.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33
 


This is a horrible situation, especially for the new born. I think the doctor was irresponsible for not by the least informing the parents. It was obvious that his personal agenda was not to inform the parents due to their options for abortion and now the parents are in a dillemma. I guess it's so easy for him to make that decision for them, huh? Now it depends as to whether the doctors guilty of keeping silent. Was it his obligation to inform the parents exactly as to what was at fault with the fetus? Me thinks this will end up being the case.

I think priority now is that the parents should take care of the child, or atleast the newborn should be taken into care. This is a very hard decision and one that people should not make judgements upon lightly, unless you've been in their shoes. It's going to cost money to care for him, you betcha, and I think it's only fair, given the doctors moral judgement to keep silent, that he pay for the results of his silence. And I also believe that the tax payer will eventually pay for this as well.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silentkiss
The couple refused other tests that would have shown abnormalities in their child but at greater risk of miscarriage. Since they refused it will be hard to hold the clinic responsible even if their ultrasounds were not administered properly.


That is a good thing to point out. If they were offered other tests and they refused, it's silly to attempt to put complete blame on the doctor, but then again there are somewhat conflicting sides of the story:


Without discounting Bryan's enormous needs, attorneys representing Morel and the ultrasound clinics insisted their clients weren't negligent........

He argued that the couple rejected amniocentesis, which might have revealed the abnormalities. The couple rejected it because they were told that there was a 1 in 500 chance that removing amniotic fluid for testing would cause a miscarriage.

Mejia testified that a genetic counselor she saw after an ultrasound detected a possibility Bryan would be born with Down's Syndrome told her there was a 99.9 percent chance he wouldn't have the form of mental retardation. Rather than needlessly risk losing the child, she and her husband decided not to have amniocentesis.


So it does as though the doctor was purposefully leading them away from finding out. But it is two conflicting stories.... Usually though in pregancy you go through ultra sounds more than once, sometimes through different doctors... so it depends I guess. If this doctor was purposefully misleading them and convincing them not to take anymore tests, he should take part responsibility because obviously his actions were on purpose.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Most moms-to-be have a standard ultrasound when they're between 16 and 20 weeks pregnant. But you may have one as early as 4 or 5 weeks or any time after that if there are signs of a problem. Most people look forward to the midpregnancy ultrasound because it gives them a first glimpse of their baby.

The technician will probably present you with a grainy printout of the sonogram as a keepsake. And you may be able to find out your child's sex, if you want to. But the main purpose of the ultrasound is to provide you and your practitioner with important information about your baby's health and development.

If you're having a low-risk pregnancy, however, you might not be offered an ultrasound at all. In fact, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends ultrasounds only when there's a specific medical reason.


What information will my ultrasound provide?

Measure your baby's size
The sonographer will measure your baby across the skull, along the thighbone, and around the abdomen to make sure he's about the size he should be for his age.

Check the baby for physical abnormalities
Your practitioner will look closely at your baby's basic anatomy, including his head, neck, chest, heart, spine, stomach, kidneys, bladder, arms, legs, and umbilical cord to make sure they're developing properly.

Babycenter.com

I'm not sure at what point in the pregnancy the ultrasound occurred but it is possible the baby appeared normal at the time of the test and developed the deformities later in the pregnancy. From the ultrasounds that I've seen, everything looks pretty grainy and blurry so I would say its pretty difficult to judge with 100% certainty whether any given baby is deformed. The article says the ultrasound tech believed they saw the limbs at the time of testing. Unless it can be proven that they are lying and intentionally hid the deformity from the parents, I don't believe they should be held responsible.

If the parents win this lawsuit, it may force doctors to demand extra testing for anything and everything on all mothers in order to prevent potential lawsuits, further driving up our out of control medical costs. Or doctors may take the recommendation AGAINST ultrasound for low-risk pregnancies more seriously, denying it to women unless a problem is detected in other testing. This would make routine ultrasound possible only for the super-rich who could afford to pay out-of-pocket for the procedure.

Malpractice lawsuits are already driving doctors out of this specialty in droves. Saying that doctors will be responsible for the lifetime expenses of raising a disabled child will drive even more from the profession leaving future mothers with a dangerous doctor shortage when less doctors are willing to accept the potential liability associated with bringing life into this world.

I can't see anything good coming from this lawsuit. With the shadow of eugenics hovering over the entire issue, this decision could have scary consequences for the future of medicine.

I hope to God that this couple doesn't win this lawsuit.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The key, here, is determining whether or not the Doctor was negligent in his duties.

From as far as I can tell, there's no evidence he was. I'd toss the case out, honestly. There is none.

As for the whole concept of "aborting a defective child" - that, really, comes down to a couple's decision. I'll be honest - I have no interest in the "challenge" of raising a challenged child. It makes no sense from a logical standpoint. I've seen the way 'challenged' children are treated and their prospects for living a gratifying life... not good. I don't see where it's responsible to knowingly allow a child into this world who will have to struggle simply to achieve something resembling lower-functioning normality. Sorry - it ain't cute, no matter how many movies you make about it, or how many parents of these kids say "I admire their courage!"

The purpose of reproduction is to create a future generation and, generally, improve upon it.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
OBgyn's already are scarce thanks to the high premiums THEY have to pay to deliver babies due to exactly this type of lawsuit. Perhaps the couple just felt that if they could win the case they would have the money to take care of the child. Yes this type of lawsuit does and will cause everyone's costs to go up. I've always thought there were ethical issues around this type of testing anyway.

Amniocentesis is actually considered to be more of a risk than ultrasound, and it's usually only done on high-risk preggies.


There was a misspeling in that article too. Piece instead of peace. Doesn't anybody proofread anything?
edit on 8-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
These are the sort of lawsuits that make it impossible for us to get this country's health care costs down. It breaks my heart that this family has to go through such an emotionally tough time..it breaks my heart even more that this child might learn that their own parents not only didnt want them because theu werent born perfect. Sounds like the parents have had every opportunity to perform certain tests that could have ruled out deformity but chose not to. If it was of a paramount concern one would reason that they would exhaust all options of finding out the health status of their child. They didn't. Thanks for being part of the problem, Florida parents.

Who said anything about the parents not wanting the child because it "wasn't born perfect"? Being born without three limbs, is far, far from perfect. That's an asinine assumption on your part.

Did it cross your mind they might not want the child to face such a long and difficult life?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysticPearl

Originally posted by slowisfast
These are the sort of lawsuits that make it impossible for us to get this country's health care costs down. It breaks my heart that this family has to go through such an emotionally tough time..it breaks my heart even more that this child might learn that their own parents not only didnt want them because theu werent born perfect. Sounds like the parents have had every opportunity to perform certain tests that could have ruled out deformity but chose not to. If it was of a paramount concern one would reason that they would exhaust all options of finding out the health status of their child. They didn't. Thanks for being part of the problem, Florida parents.

Who said anything about the parents not wanting the child because it "wasn't born perfect"? Being born without three limbs, is far, far from perfect. That's an asinine assumption on your part.

Did it cross your mind they might not want the child to face such a long and difficult life?


Umm apparently the parents would have aborted had they known about the disability. Thus the lawsuit claiming negligence in testing. Otherwise they have no case at all, since the MD had nothing to do with the disability itself. The disability is not a result from the delivery.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
This mother is one 'wicked' woman.

What will the child think of the mother later on in life when this law suit becomes known to the child?







top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join