Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
Um...that's clearly malpractice. If you have a chromosomal test for Down Syndrome that is negative, and you have a child with Down Syndrome, some one made a major mistake. That's not a little whoops. That's a gotta get it right 100% of the time kinda test.
|
Point taken - but when I reread the article it stated that there was testimony on behalf of the defendent (Legacy) that indicated the test was done properly but it didn't show up as Down's because the child has mosaic downs which, according to those experts testifying for the defense (have no idea if this is true or not - you would have to tell me), wouldn't necessarily show up on the test because her cells don't always carry the extra 21st chromosome.
The information I looked up indicated that the CVS test which is what the lab did is 98% -99% accurate - which is a great rate, but not a perfect rate, so I would assume that means there is a margin for error somewhere. Is this information accurate by the way - is that the accuracy rate for that test?. I don't know if someone has legal grounds to sue (this is where I wanted some legal clarification from MysticCat) if they get an inaccurate result on a test and there is no obvious error on the part of the lab/doctor when the test doesn't claim to be 100% accurate.
Perhaps they do - I have no idea - I'm interested to know.
Also, I don't know whether or not the parents were aware that there was a 1-2% chance the test could be wrong - of course if they weren't told, they have grounds to sue, but if they knew there was even a small chance the tests could be wrong - then it would seem to me they have less legal ground to stand on.
According to the article the parents argument is that the mistake the doctor made was to collect and use cells from the mother's uterine wall instead of cells from the child, and if that's the case, then a suit makes sense, but the doctor/lab of course, deny this and the article doesn't go into what evidence there was to support either side's position. It didn't sound like there was certain evidence either way. I realize civil actions don't carry the same burden of proof. As I understand it, with a 98-99% accuracy rate, the lab and doctor could have done everything correctly and still had a 1%-2% chance that the test would be inaccurate. Is that correct?
What I would also be curious to know is if, given this, the doctor recommended a second test to be sure. The article doesn't state whether that happened and I could see that being a basis for a suit as well, but again, I have no idea- what is the medical standard for that - Do they routinely do a second test to ensure accuracy? Also - as HQWest suggested - is it standard in these cases to recommend an amnio if the test comes back negative?
Sorry to barrage you (and MysticCat) with so many questions, but I know newspapers aren't capable of giving complete information and I really would like to know more about the issues surrounding this case.