Woman Sues for Failed Abortion. Your Thoughts?
 

Saw this article today. Just wondering what you all thought about it. I consider myself pro-choice but I'm wondering why she didn't choose adoption.

BOSTON Mar 7, 2007 (AP)— A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

It was only when Raper went to the New England Medical Center emergency room for treatment of pelvic pain in late September that year that she found out she was pregnant, the suit said.

She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.

She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.

Raper and her lawyer, Barry C. Reed Jr., refused comment when contacted by The Boston Globe.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said the organization does not comment on pending litigation.

Neither doctor responded to requests for comment.

Raper alleges in the suit that Planned Parenthood and Bryant were negligent for failing to end her pregnancy and that Eleonu was negligent for failing to see she was still pregnant.

The state's high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.

Raper's suit has no mentions of medical problems involving her now 2-year-old daughter.

As with all medical malpractice suits in Massachusetts, Raper's complaint will have to be screened by a tribunal consisting of a Superior Court judge, a lawyer, and a doctor to determine whether it has merit to go to trial.

Here's a link to the article as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2931334

It was my understanding that the small print on abortions was always that it was not 100% effective...just like condoms.

I know we all learned in 7th grade health class, that the only way to be sure to not be pregnant is to be...(say it with me) ABSTINENT. :)

I am very interested to see how this case turns out though. Hopefully it doesn't drag out for too long. How would feel to know that the lucrative case your mother is fighting is regarding how she didn't want you to begin with???:confused: :o :(

People sue for everything!

Doesn't it make sense to sue for failed surgical procedures, in general?

Not just like condoms. Condoms are preventive just like other forms of birth control. That's why their failure rate is expected and makes sense.

Abortions are supposed to target an ENTITY and remove it, right? Why shouldn't patients expect it to be 100%?

I agree with you. We are not talking about a condom that broke. We are talking about someone who PAID for a procedure that was not correctly carried out. That can be construed as malpractice. Power to her. I would not want to be her kid who finads out in 20 years that Mommy tried to get rid of me and we have that Porsche Jeep in the driveway because it didn't work.

WoW!
 

You are so right. This is a very litigious world that we live in. I can see her suing if something went dreadfully wrong and that's why it failed, but to sue simply because the event didn't take place...hum. The whole experience is life threatening, I thought, so hopefully her health is okay. More than suing, maybe what she needs is some counseling, to make sure that her mental health is okay.

7th

Isn't this still malpractice, even considering the small print? (Maybe our lawyer friends can enlighten us). It doesn't surprise me she sued.

The question
 

Good question Heather, but, does a woman seeking an abortion sign a statement declaring the release of liability? Not that the statement would remove the Doctor from being responsible in the event of a woman's death. What are the legal or jurisdictional statutes concerning abortions, considering the fact that they aren't legal in some states? And, maybe somewhere in the language, it may state something about abortions not being deemed a necessary surgery or operation. I don't know, I'm just wondering.

7th

I agree with Chaos that this needs to be looked at more generally as a botched surgical procedure--one that the patient paid for. Take out the issue that it was an abortion.

This is a 45 year old woman who felt she could not afford to have the child. That includes the medical costs of having the baby. That also might explain why she didn't consider adoption--she would still have the medical costs with no guarantee of an adoptive family to pick them up.

As for abstinence. Come on, let's not be naive. I envy her for having an active sexual life :D . And at the age of 45 she may be going through menopause, which could make one think they can't get pregnant anymore because of irregular or missed monthlies.

Bottom line is she paid to have a medical procedure done, the procedure was botched so now she is suing for malpractice and to recoup the future costs associated with the mistake. IMO, no different than other such lawsuits where a procedure was not done correctly and the lawsuit includes on-going medical care.

ETA: My guess is that the fine print about not being 100 percent effective may be for preventive measures such as vasectomies and tube ligations.

I am almost sure that it is elective surgery except in cases where it is to save to mother's life. I figure it is a medical procedure. She PAID for it. Even if she did sign a release, if you look at it like a contract(I pay "X" amount of dollars for a service), it that service is not performed, that is a breach. That doctor and Planned Parenthood are about to up some duckets...

sidenote: i thought Planned Parenthood did abortions for free or low-cost?

if the abortion was free, could she even seek $? i mean, it sucks but can the "you get what you pay for" maxim work here?

on another note, (and these are more legal questions) when children are killed, dont parents tend to sue for the dollar amount of the expected financial worth of the child? i remember something about a teenager who was killed and the lawsuit was for the $ he couldve made had he went to college, graduated and worked a healthy career (i forget what the field was).

i can KINDA see how this works if your child(ren) is/are approaching adulthood, but if the kid is like 3 or 4, then that doesnt really work...

my point to all that was, if parents can sue when their child dies (therefore no longer making them a parent, then that logic says an adult can sue when their child lives (making them a parent, in this case when she didnt intend to be).

man, talk about "the customer is always right"

ETA: i also don't believe that this woman is suing purely for "financial reasons." that is her and her lawyer's cover to make this lawsuit as cut and dry as possible. i mean abortions happen because the pregnancy is UNPLANNED. which is why PLANNED Parenthood swoops in and is "supposed to save the day." but they just made it worse. well, the doctors anyway.

AND ANOTHER THING. when women are artificially inseminated, they are paying for a service, yet its known that pregnancy is not 100% guaranteed. are abortions going to start being advertised as "not 100% effective?" will you have to go to the doctor for a follow-up, to make sure that sucka aint kickin anymore? (i know, that's kinda insensitive)

I just need for people to stop trying to pimp the system. Abortions are not 100% effective! So instead of being angry at the drs maybe she should be made at herself for having no self control in the area of sex!! This angers me because there is much more to this abortion issue than she is even thinking of.

again, lets stop being naive here. ppl are going to have sex. ppl are going to make bad choices in who/when/why/how they have sex. sex is weird, ish happens you know? so instead of blaming a woman for the right to choose to have sex with who/when/why and how and blaming her for the choices she made after that...

that's like telling someone who gets hit by a drunk driver "well maybe if you werent on the road late at night where you KNOW people may be drunkdriving, this may not have happened." are you gonna blame the victim for having no self-control in the desire/need to drive? or are you going to poin the finger at the person who ACTUALLY did wrong?

the failed abortion was NOT this woman's fault. not one but TWO doctors screwed up. not only was the procedure done wrong, but it wasn't even noticed by the next doctor!

let's not even get into the issue of pre-natal care: lots of women are inaccessible to such and given that this women got an abortion (or tried to) at a Planned Parenthood and her reasoning being "financial reasons," i cant imagine her access to proper pre-natal care (ie a trusted doctor she could continuously visit that would track her pregnancy and know her needs) was all that great.

p.s. anyone having a tongue-in-cheek moment about the woman's last name?

Pimp the system! The system is flawed anyway. Why do you think docs have to carry malpractice insurance. Have you read about the increase of medical mistakes? What if the child had been born with deformities, because of the botched procedure? (and we don't know that for sure.) Would you be more sympathetic? And why didn't the second doctor realize she was still pregnant?

More self-control! You make it sound as if this woman was wantonly having sex. And even if she was, as a person who has been 45, I know that the body can send off false signals. And guess what wanting sexual intimacy does not stop at age 35!!!!! And the article doesn't go into it, so for all we know the father could be her husband.

Again, imo this is not an abortion issue, it is a botched medical procedure issue. And unfortunately they are made more often then we would like to think.

It is easy to be judgemental of others when you think you are above a particular "sin."

I mean really. Suing for the cost of raising a child?? I just don't agree. I say sue for whatever the procedure cost and the prenatal care she got once she found out, maybe even for the cost of the therapy she's gonna need after this nightmare. But while it may be a botched procedure that is to blame for her remaining pregnant, it's not the organization's fault for her being pregnant when she couldn't afford it. Most people don't abstain from sex when they can't handle the consequences, but whose fault is that? It just doesn't make sense to me to know full well that sex can and often will lead to a baby, do it, then be mad when a baby is made. Condoms, the pill, the patch, use whatever you want--but if the only way to make C is to put A and B in the same body.....when you put A and B in the same body, don't start suing people when C is made. She could've relinquished the baby to child services after she was born. As hard as it would have been, that would've been an answer to her problem and, since she's so hard up for cash, it would have cost a lot less than the thousands she's about to pay in legal fees. If you can't afford the baby formula at Family Dollar, what does she think the lawyer's gonna cost?!?!?! There's something about that that doesn't sit well with me....fishy as tuna, I say.

Give her what she's due and withold what she's not.

HAHAHA, well, I wasn't gonna say anything........

OK, I'm no abortion expert, but my understanding of the procedure means that the fetus is sucked or scraped out (TMI and quite gross, but I'm getting to a point). Was "something" removed? If so, is the child.... "deformed" in any way? If not and "something" was removed, what the hell was it?

She could sue off the sheer fact of medical malpractice. I am too tired to read the article and add'l facts tonight, so I'll reserve comment on her suing for the cost of raising a child, etc.

After doing a bit of research, I found documentation from Planned Parenthood that states it is NOT 100% effective. It states directly on their national website that depending upon the procedure she endured (medical or surgical) the effectiveness varies from 92% effective to more than 99% effective.

More than 99% effective does not equal 100% effective.

Also, it was not stated in the article the type of procedure she went through. If it was the abortion pill that 8% of variation could mean high possibility for a child.

Planned Parenthood Abortions

So I guess IMHO if she's going to sue anyone, she should sue the doctor who did not detect the pregnancy, not Planned Parenthood. Especially when they say upfront that certain procedures are far less than 100% effective.

While it's naive to say that a 45-year-old should be abstinent, the truth still remains that abstinent people ironically are NEVER pregnant.:p The last I heard of an abstinent woman being pregnant was a few thousand years back...this really nice lady named Mary. ;) :)

*snickers at Raper as last name* Sorry. :o

I really wish people would stop infringing upon women's rights. She wanted an abortion. PERIOD. She couldn't get the abortion. PERIOD.

This isn't about condoms, the pill, the patch, abstinence, adoption, the stork, or whatever else.

Save the speeches for the MEN who are having sex--usually irresponsibly.

Until then, this 45 yr old grown ass woman wants her money. And I think she should get at least some of it.

Imagine how this discussion would go if it was a 19 yr old woman. :eek:

It would be interesting to find out that she was pregnant with TWINS ;)

wow I never thought of that Soror...hummmm...

Yeah it would be! Wow... that's some serious 'survival of the fittest'!

It's sad because I can only imagine how this 2yr old child will feel when they reach of age to realize that their mother wanted to abort them AND THEN sued because it didn't work out the way she wanted it to. Very sad, very distrubing

you know! she'll be one of the many members of prozac nation... sean preston better save her a seat...

word! does anyone smell a Law and Order SVU episode from this? cause it sho would be good!

i skimmed the article and overlooked the fact that she was 45 (prime menopausal stages and all) combined with Planned Parenthood saying that abortions are not 100% effective (logically that makes sense, i guess people just dont expect then NOT to be), i can totally seee how the abortion didnt work... or took one of the twins... whatever story we're going on...

but still, she needs to get her $$. allow me to direct you to a similar story: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030204.html

woman in Australia gets $104K for child-rearing costs of her now-7 year old son. convienently this story broke on March 2. hmmm... i mean while $104k isnt nearly what i imagine it costs to have a child, it sho pays for some college.

If you know you are in a bad financial situation...

...KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED. You can take all the birth control pills you want, get your tubes tied (I've heard of cases where women still got pregnant),take the shot, use condoms, wear the patch or whatever and still end up pregnant. Why? Because these methods are not 100%.

Now even though I do not agree with abortion, and people do sue for anything these days, she should get some money back since she claims the procedure was done incorrectly. Someone asked this question in another forum and it made me think. If people can sue for failed abortions, then can they also sue for birth control pills that fail and broken condoms too? They might as well.

I wonder what that child's life is going to be like considering the mother was trying to abort it. That child is going to need some serious therapy. Just give the baby up for adoption.

Only if she was raped.

Ten years from now?

Call it my pro-choice (borderline pro-abortion) outlook but I feel that people are missing the point here.

I see the response that this child is going to go through emotional turmoil after finding out about the attempted abortion on her life. While this may be true, I think people are unjustly attacking this woman. She sought an abortion and paid for a service which was improperly rendered. Point blank, period, end of question. Then some want to assert that she should have been "responsible." It is completely out of the question to demand that this woman remain abstinent because she was in a "bad financial situation." Get real. How many times do people engage in sexual activity and don't have a dime to their name? (That is why many of us come from such large families of ten or twelve children, but I digress.) Clearly, this woman is 45 years old, not some 13 year old Maury talk show guest having sex with 50-11 different men. It's not the woman's sexual character OR morality that is being called into question. It is the execution of the supposed medical expertise of the doctor.

Has anyone stopped to think that at 45, this woman probably firmly believed that there wasn't a cold chance in hell that she could get pregnant? I mean having never been 45 I can only go on suspicion but I would venture to say the body, especially of a woman, will play tricks on you. Also at 45, I doubt this woman wanted to raise another child. And if you've NEVER been through an adoption process and/or seen the effects of adoption first hand on a person, then you shouldn't be so quick to throw that up as an option. Newsflash, the cost of adoption is just as much as the cost of raising a child and frankly, has more of an emotional cost than raising a child does. Assuming that the child is finally adopted out of the system, what happens if that child goes into an abusive home? Don't put your blinders on, this scenario happens more often than you'd imagine. Besides, we're not at the "woulda-coulda-shoulda" point of the situation. What's done is done now and that is the fact that she PAID for a procedure that was improperly rendered.

I wonder would people have this many speeches are soap box episodes for a case when it's really needed...

There is no way you can convince me that a failed abortion is 100% responsible for a child being born. It does not make me less of a feminist/womanist to believe that women have agency in making babies as well as in aborting them. To say that abortionists owe this woman the cost of raising her child is to act as though women are the helpless victims of pregnancy, which in this country is simply not the case.

Adoption is expensive for adoptive parents, not biological ones. It costs nothing to leave a baby at a drop-off center. Which emotional cost is greater is not measurable. Asking "What happens if a child goes into an abusive home?" is just like asking "What happens if a child is born into an abusive home?"--s/he should be removed. Adoptive parents run no greater risk than biological ones, particularly biological ones who didn't want their children in the first place.

While I do agree that this is a botched surgical procedure and she does deserve some compensation, I just can't forget that there is a NEW PERSON to consider now. There is a person here who one day may find out they weren't wanted. Somebody needs to help him/her too. This whole thing just makes my stomach hurt. (no pun intended) :(

I think this is ridiculous. If she had the abortion originally b/c she could not shoulder the cost of raising a child, I would think she would give it up for adoption. There is no way that I can believe the cost of giving up a child for adoption is more expensive than raising one yourself. That doesn't make any sense.
Regarding the abortion, if it fails, it is possible to go back and have it done again. This is not unlike other procedures that may need to be repeated if the doctor screws up (plastic surgery comes to mind) or if there is still more tissue present (tumor resection comes to mind). And from my limited medical training, it is not standard to get a pregnancy test afterwards to check if there is still a pregnancy. Usually that is only done if there was a problem, OR if the patient suspects she is still pregnant!

If she's going to sue for a failed medical procedure, then fine. BUT for the cost of raising a child that she could have given away?? Unacceptable.

[QUOTE=RedefinedDiva;1409831]OK, I'm no abortion expert, but my understanding of the procedure means that the fetus is sucked or scraped out (TMI and quite gross, but I'm getting to a point). Was "something" removed? If so, is the child.... "deformed" in any way? If not and "something" was removed, what the hell was it? [QUOTE]

Depending on the type of abortion she had, tissue could have been removed that was not actually part of the fetus. Most of what is removed in a surgical abortion is not actually the fetus. So the child could be perfectly normal.

[QUOTE=blackngoldengrl;1410465][QUOTE=RedefinedDiva;1409831]OK, I'm no abortion expert, but my understanding of the procedure means that the fetus is sucked or scraped out (TMI and quite gross, but I'm getting to a point). Was "something" removed? If so, is the child.... "deformed" in any way? If not and "something" was removed, what the hell was it? So is what is removed only done to allow the fetus to be eventually expelled from the body? I thought this was the case of the old technology of a D&C, not the current technology of a surgical abortion.

[QUOTE=ladygreek;1410491][QUOTE=blackngoldengrl;1410465]I wasn't as clear as I should have been. The idea is to remove everything, the fetus* and the additional tissue. I was saying that in this case where the abortion failed, what was removed was not any part of the fetus, but rather the supportive tissue.

In general when a surgical abortion is performed, most of what is there is not the fetus, but the supportive tissue. Meaning that the tissue makes up a greater percentage of what is actually removed, since the fetus is still so small at this point.

*depending on gestational age, could be embryo

As a Law and Order addict, I must fill you in. There actually is an SVU episode similar to this. But you know there are always some differences. In the Law and Order episode, the child has cerebal palsy. That was a good episode too.

While I don't doubt what you're saying, as I have never been nor do I have interest in getting pregnant or having an abortion at any point in the past or present, nor do I have a strong scientifc background, but I cannot understand how "supportive tissue" can be removed and a child survive. :confused:

I still say she should get some money (at least enough to cover her prenatal medical bills and some therapy!) but not enough to cover having a child.

Children are expensive--SO ARE LAWYERS. Unless the lawyer is her boo-nana, she's going broke as we speak. She must know that she'll probably lose because PP put that loophole in the release for services that she signed. Seeing as how this whole thing started because she didn't have the finances to have a child, that just doesn't sound right. Why would she pay an arm, a leg, and half a breast on a case she'll probably lose? I think she's owed something....A LOT OF SOMETHING....but not what she's asking. Hope her settlement's big because there's no way she'll go all the way on this, not with the loopholes that this corporation set up in case something like this happened.

This much is true. But it's not the question of her role in the matter, it's the obligation of the doctor who failed to perform his compensated duties.

Here in the state of Georgia, it is against the law to leave a child at a "drop off center." If a woman who does this is identified, she will be found guilty of negligence and sentenced to jail time. There again, another cost and this time, it's her complete freedom to do anything. There is a vast difference in the ideology of the child being removed from an abusive home and the actual application of that to cases where it should take place.

The plaintiff's role in a matter she is suing someone else about is always vital. Normally when someone fails to perform his or her compenstated duties, he or she pays the customer back. If the customer has only remained in his or her original condition, the provider of the service is not held responsible for the condition.

You're mistaken. http://www.safeplacefornewborns.com/statefiles/ga.html

Sure, but you seemed to be implying some kind of increased risk of being placed into an abusive situation with adoption. I'd be much more worried about this particular mother abusing her child than the chance that an adoptive parent might.

How does a doctor NOT see a 20 week old fetus?
And why is she still raising the child if she didn't want it?