Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUADPi
I'm guessing the law is to protect those doctors who were honest with the parents and up front and then they still choose to have the child, and then because of the cost of taking care of the special needs child decide to sue the doctor claiming "wrongful birth".
The reality is Americans are very "sue happy". There are lawsuits for every BS reason known to man. Malpractice insurance is through the roof.
|
Yes and no. There have been studies that have proven that tort reform would matter little overall to health care costs but would seriously impact the ability of patients to address true malpractice issues. Mostly physicians need to do a better job of documentation and educating their patients.
As for DS, a triple screen is recommended in all pregnant women. It screens for DS and neural tube defects like spina bifida. The rationale is that knowing about these defects is important for parents for planning. One of the options is termination of the pregnancy. 2D ultrasound can find signs that a fetus has DS even if you refuse the Triple screen blood test. DS fetuses classically have no nasal bones, thickened nuchal folds at 11-16 weeks, ventricular echogenic foci and cardiac anomalies among other findings. This is likely what was seen on the case that was discussed in the article. This isn't a pandora's box. It has been going on for decades quietly and we don't have an epidemic of parent's aborting their DS fetuses. It's a tragic situation that is a personal decision made by individual patients in consultation with their physicians. Few parents make that choice, but they make it with heavy hearts and shouldn't be reviled for their position or decision. But by the grace of god go I...