No problem. Such a sad case. I admit I didn't fully read the article the first time I posted so I didn't see the intricacies of the case. I stopped after the findings of the jury. Very interesting case. Medical decision making can be very difficult and malpractice occurs even when everyone has the best intentions. Some of the things the jury found that I noted, however, was that there was poor communication between the lab and the physician. There may have been a different outcome had the lab communicated to the physician and the physician to the patient that the sample was too small thus limiting the results. This lack of communication gets so many practitioners in trouble in malpractice situations. We are all busy, but proper communication saves a lot of heartache, money and pain later. I spend a LOT of time calling referring physicians, speaking to patients and DOCUMENTING these conversations. Older physicians have a hard time understanding the importance of this concept.

This all reminds me that whenevery I have lab tests done in the future, I will ask questions. My doctor is getting up there - but even though I complain about her tendancy to go overboard on occassion (IMO) - I'm glad she's the double check everything, do tests twice if something comes up weird, and dig until you get to the bottom of it and figure it out type.

Agreed on the other point - sad case indeed.

Am I the only one put off by the "better to be dead than disabled" implications of these laws and cases? I can kind of see the reasoning for something like Tay Sachs where the lifespan is only a few years, but Down Syndrome isn't terminal (yes, I'm aware of the higher risk for heart deficits, early onset Alzheimer's, and leukemia, but those are still issues that, AFAIK, affect a minority of people with DS, and *everyone* is at some risk for those things, some moreso based on family history/genetics.).

I too am bothered by this. Just as it bothers me that the legislature felt there was enough need to make a law on this. Tay Sachs or Edwards syndrome I can kind of understand - at that point one might start weighing the risks in child birth to the mother versus a child with a very short expected lifespan and low quality of life.

The other thing that bothers me is that they could have checked this with the amnio, but there is a risk to the child with an amnio too.

That's why it is the choice of the parents. Not every person is able to handle being a special needs parent. Hell, not everyone is able to handle being a parent at all.

This!!! Best Words of Wisdom of the Day Award Winner!!!!!

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts - I am concerned about it from an ethical standpoint and yes it does bother me, but it is a decision these parents can legally make, and given that, I was curious about legal issues relating to this case and how they relate to the Arizona law....or proposed law.

No. That's one of the reasons that the courts are so reluctant to recognize wrongful life claims -- they are reticent to suggest that no life is better than life.

That's for sure.

I personally find it to be quite disturbing, not just for the implications now but also in the future. What sort of Pandora's box are we opening here? Will it be acceptable in the near future to terminate a pregnancy because the child may be born deaf, or may develop ADHD, or born a gender unwanted by the parents? My mother was born with a physical handicap and the idea that someone would think she would have been better off never being born makes me sick to my stomach.

Check hb2625

Scroll down to the red section to see what was proposed.

An employer could fire a woman if she used contraceptives.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument...Session_ID=107

The blue portions are the proposed amendments. I don't see anything relating to firing, unless you're suggesting that it's already in the bill?

Well, it's in legaleese, so I'll defer to someone who speaks that language and admit I may be totally misunderstanding the highlighted blue and red portions but what I understood each of those sections to say was that religous employers have the right to refuse certain types of coverage as part of their health plans, so a Catholic church, for instance, can ask their health care provider to exclude prescriptions for birth control from their employee coverage. It sounds like these organizations would first need to notify the health insurance company of each exclusion in writing, but assuming they did that, having those exclusions wouldn't be considered a failure to provide necessary coverage for their employees.

The employee, on the other hand, has the right to seek health care insurance on their own and not use the religous organization's coverage, and they cannot be descriminated against if they choose to do so.

I'm also missing anything that indicated an employee would be fired for using contraceptives - and how in the world would an employer ever be able to get this information anyway?

That's the gist of what I was getting, too, with the addition that if you need contraceptives for a medical reason such as endometriosis, you first have to pay for it out of pocket, then petition to have it covered, for which they will charge you a filing fee. :rolleyes:

The red is what the bill proposes to delete from the statute, to be replaced by the blue.

I'll admit I didn't read every word carefully, but I didn't see anything either about being able to fire employees who use contraceptives. Exactly what language in the bill are you talking about?

I read an article on HP that suggests employers would be able to fire employees if they claimed to be on contraceptives for a medical condition to get it paid for by the employer's health insurance under this statute only to be found out to be lying. Very convoluted thinking. Still not a good law. This goes to far to protect a employer's "religious rights" but ignores the employee's rights when they frequently pay into the health insurance as much as or more than the employer.