Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

I disagree. Her analogy was about creating an additional problem. Furthermore I don't buy the comparison of gangrene or any other unfortunate condition to pregnancy, something a middle-aged American woman has had the means and knowledge to prevent for most of her life.

If she were suing for prenatal care and delivery costs, that'd be one thing. Maybe emotional distress. But in general you don't get compensated for the choices you make in life.

How do you not perform an aportion correctly? Is the child damaged? How sad this all is...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by laylo

But in general you don't get compensated for the choices you make in life.

People get compensated for their choices everyday.

Society just creates new rules when it comes to women's reproductive systems. Another way of controlling a group of people.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

People get compensated for their choices everyday.

Society just creates new rules when it comes to women's reproductive systems. Another way of controlling a group of people.

Well, I don't believe others ought to get sued for the things a person does to him or herself, whether it involves reproduction or not.

[shinerbock]

Kevin, well I certainly don't think the defense counsel will make it about abortion, but it will be impossible for a lot of people to separate the legal issues from their personal feelings. Jury selection for this would be fun.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Kevin, well I certainly don't think the defense counsel will make it about abortion, but it will be impossible for a lot of people to separate the legal issues from their personal feelings. Jury selection for this would be fun.

Morally, it's a wash, IMHO. She wanted an abortion and the doc was to perform it. A pro-lifer them as equally morally deficient. On one hand, they might want to punish the doc for performing abortions. On the other, they're not going to want to reward the woman for seeking one.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Morally, it's a wash, IMHO. She wanted an abortion and the doc was to perform it. A pro-lifer them as equally morally deficient. On one hand, they might want to punish the doc for performing abortions. On the other, they're not going to want to reward the woman for seeking one.

I agree, mostly. However, I think people may have trouble compensating the woman. The defense could make the point that a judgment wouldn't be harming the doctor, because the med mal insurance would pay. However, I imagine the judge would be pretty reluctant to allow the jury to hear much of that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I agree, mostly. However, I think people may have trouble compensating the woman. The defense could make the point that a judgment wouldn't be harming the doctor, because the med mal insurance would pay. However, I imagine the judge would be pretty reluctant to allow the jury to hear much of that.

Discussion of insurance coverage wouldn't get into the courtroom, at least not for that purpose. You'll learn that in your evidence class.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by laylo

Well, I don't believe others ought to get sued for the things a person does to him or herself, whether it involves reproduction or not.

You should spend your days protesting the legal system then.

[shinerbock]

Or they could protest abortion. Simply because there are other forms of killing going on around the world doesn't mean what people's feelings about abortion should be disregarded.

We can talk entirely about legal issues I suppose, but there will only be like 5 of us doing so...

[DSTCHAOS]

Yeah. Protest abortion. But save it for another case.

[unspokenone25]

Originally Posted by laylo

I disagree. Her analogy was about creating an additional problem. Furthermore I don't buy the comparison of gangrene or any other unfortunate condition to pregnancy, something a middle-aged American woman has had the means and knowledge to prevent for most of her life.

If she were suing for prenatal care and delivery costs, that'd be one thing. Maybe emotional distress. But in general you don't get compensated for the choices you make in life.

Actually, there's case law in different states that supports her claim for medical malpractice. I think she might be able to recover some of her damages if not all of them. I wonder if she's also suing for tortious assault, IIED, and gross negligence. This scenario was once used as an MBE question on the Bar.

[Kevin]

As unspokenone says, the law of medmal differs from state to state. I think here though, the woman clearly had the ability to mitigate her damages and chose not to.

When we talk about negligence, in very simple terms, we are talking about someone who breaches a duty, is the proximate cause of the harm and somehow damages the plaintiff. If any of those elements are absent, your basic negligence claim (which is mostly what a medmal claim is) doesn't fly.

In medical malpractice, to establish the "duty" aspect, there must first be the establishment of the "standard of care." Usually, this is done with experts. The duty differs from state to state, but mostly, the standard of care consists of whatever the level of care, skill, ability, etc. that the reasonable doctor/caregiver in that locality would be (the standard of care in Hooker, OK, pop ~2,000 would differ from Dallas, TX). Before establishing that this doctor owes anything, it must somehow be shown that he didn't do something he should have reasonably done. No medical procedure comes with a 100% guarantee. Since we don't know whether the doctor breached his duty of reasonable care, to even talk about damages, I think we're jumping the gun.

Even assuming the doctor breached his standard of care, the defendant here has some pretty good defenses. Most states recognize that the defendant cannot sit idly by and watch her damages increase when the defendant could reasonably do something to stop. I can't for the life of me comprehend how the defendant could not determine that after the procedure, she was still pregnant. It seems to me that there would have been a few clues. She should have gone in and been checked out again... even failing that, as many have said here, she could have adopted out. Instead, she has decided all on her own to take the most expensive path. I'm also thinking of the "last clear chance" defense -- that defendant here had the last clear chance to avoid the injury. She chose not to, therefore, anything after her choice should be her fault.

It's interesting to me that Plaintiff's attorney has contacted the media regarding his case (I'm assuming that because we're hearing about the case now... it's not as if the media goes out and finds stories like this on its own). That's pretty questionable ethically. It seems that he may have been trying to blackmail the doctor into settling and the doctor's insurance company called his bluff. My feeling is that this case goes nowhere or is settled for nuisance value.

[shinerbock]

Long live the freedom to take life!

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Long live the freedom to take life!

This isn't an abortion debate.