Woman sues doctors after failed abortion
 

Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

BOSTON - 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 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.

WOW. just, wow!

I feel bad for that child...the kid is going to find out eventually that not only was she unplanned, but that her mom tried to abort her. Geez, kids gonna need years of pyschotherapy.

The lawsuit makes sense to me.

Can women sue birth control companies for failed contraception?

Can they? I don't know. Makers of BC even state in their commercials that it's 99% effective - someone's always gonna represent that 1%.

well, yes most civil attorney's...attornies?...go by the rule: sue anyone you can for anything you can, one day you'll get lucky and be able to retire

This is strange, but why doesn't she just put him into adoptive services.

And I do believe the docotors are at fault and that the plantiff is entitled to monetarry compinsation, whether those funds are to be used in rearing the child or otherwise.

I doubt it because I doubt you would be able to prove that you took it "as directed", on time, everyday, and therefore they would be able to argue that it was your fault. (Plus they do state that it's 99% effective, as someone mentioned.)

Wrongful life!
 

It makes sense to me, too, although I wonder if the doctors will allege that she failed to mitigate damages by giving the kid up for adoption.

Wow. Just wow.

She is entitled to a refund for the abortion.

What if instead of a botched abortion, this was a case where the doctor, say, amputated the wrong leg during surgery. Would the patient be entitled only to a refund of the cost of the surgery, or would there be additional damages based on the loss of the leg?

Oh. I just realized there are 2 different threads that I've been posting in.

That has happened before.

I believe the person won a ton of money because he still had to get the correct leg amputated. He's now a parapalegic(sp).

Shaheen v. Knight comes to mind.

On another note, this lawsuit really disgusts me.

I don't see how that's analogous to this case. The woman got herself pregnant, a "mistake" she made herself and wanted "fixed", in her eyes. The doctors failed to fix it for her. They didn't cause her any damage. Just as she was free to choose to abort, after the child was born she was free to choose placing the child with one of hundreds of families on waiting lists to adopt. Instead, she chose to raise her. Now she wants those who failed to fix her problem to be responsible for its existence and entire future? (For the record, I don't personally consider children to be problems).

Hence, why the lawsuit makes sense and why valkyrie's analogy loosely applies.