Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Dude, you sound like my torts professor.

HAHA that is the best thing anybody has ever said to me!

I know my analogy isn't exactly the same thing, but it's a bummer that people on this thread can't get past the emotional "OMG A BABY ISN'T A BAD THING" because for some people, it is and for some people, having an unwanted baby probably sucks just as much as having a leg amputated by accident (having never had a baby or an amputation, I can't speak from experience, but I'd be pretty upset to have either). In both cases, a doctor made a mistake and someone suffered unwanted consequences as a result. Why shouldn't some of the costs be transferred to the doctors? (I avoided the word "responsible" because my torts professor totally yelled at anybody who ever used that word.)

[shinerbock]

I can look at it both ways. As a law student it seems like she should have a claim. As a human being I feel entirely different.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I know my analogy isn't exactly the same thing, but it's a bummer that people on this thread can't get past the emotional "OMG A BABY ISN'T A BAD THING" because for some people, it is and for some people, having an unwanted baby probably sucks just as much as having a leg amputated by accident

Who said this?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I know my analogy isn't exactly the same thing, but it's a bummer that people on this thread can't get past the emotional "OMG A BABY ISN'T A BAD THING" because for some people, it is and for some people, having an unwanted baby probably sucks just as much as having a leg amputated by accident

There are ways to "get rid of" a baby - there's no way to get your leg back.

[UGAalum94]

Her having to carry and give birth to a baby she didn't want probably was/seems to her a bad thing that she could/should be compensated for, but no one is insisting that she herself assume the cost of raising the kid. She is choosing to do that. She could easily transfer that cost to someone else through adoption.

(There's a big part of my that's with Shinerbock on this one. Go ahead, sue ALL the Planned Parenthood abortionists. Great plan.)

Well, and something else worth noting about the doctors' responsibility is that they didn't actually get her pregnant. She's got some baby's daddy out there that she can compel to pay child support.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Her having to carry and give birth to a baby she didn't want probably was/seems to her a bad thing that she could/should be compensated for, but no one is insisting that she herself assume the cost of raising the kid. She is choosing to do that. She could easily transfer that cost to someone else through adoption.

Could she sue for the emotional toll of post partum depression and/or the emotional toll of having a child in the world that she doesn't know? She didn't want a child, which is why she wanted an abortion, but having the child and sending it away is a potentially different dynamic.

[RoyalEmpress33]

I wonder what the mother is going to do/say when that child finds out...this is sad. Although I don't agree with abortion, she should get a refund since she claims the procedure wasn't done correctly. But why does she have to keep the child? If her financial issues are that much of a problem, just give the baby up for adoption and be done with it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Could she sue for the emotional toll of post partum depression and/or the emotional toll of having a child in the world that she doesn't know? She didn't want a child, which is why she wanted an abortion, but having the child and sending it away is a potentially different dynamic.

If she actually suffered from post partum depression, sure. I think she has to weigh the emotional toll of having a child in the world she doesn't know against the costs of raising the child and decide for herself. I don't think she should be entitled to make the doctors assume an additional cost no matter what she decides. (I already said I though she was entitled to some damages.)

Although the doctors are partially responsible for her child being in the world, they aren't solely responsible and it doesn't seem to me that they should have to assume the whole cost of the child and the damages to the mother, whatever they might be.

(I can't remember what the book was called, but I once read a somewhat cheesy novel in which a similarly unsuccessful abortion was an element of the plot. Is this some rare example of life imitating (bad) art or is there some statistically measurable number of abortions that fail to abort the child? What usually happens in such cases? Are there usually follow up directions or examines? How the heck did the second doctor miss her pregnancy at 20 weeks?)

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

HAHA that is the best thing anybody has ever said to me!

I know my analogy isn't exactly the same thing, but it's a bummer that people on this thread can't get past the emotional "OMG A BABY ISN'T A BAD THING" because for some people, it is and for some people, having an unwanted baby probably sucks just as much as having a leg amputated by accident (having never had a baby or an amputation, I can't speak from experience, but I'd be pretty upset to have either). In both cases, a doctor made a mistake and someone suffered unwanted consequences as a result. Why shouldn't some of the costs be transferred to the doctors? (I avoided the word "responsible" because my torts professor totally yelled at anybody who ever used that word.)

Haha, my civ pro professor gets the same way when people use the word "guilty."

I think I'm agreeing with shinerbock on this; I mean, I'm pro-choice (although I have conflicting feelings on abortion, I don't think it's anyone's right to control someone's body), and as a law student I understand the rationale for damages (at least as well as a 1L can understand it), but this case still strikes me the wrong way. Of course, if things were decided on whether they struck someone "the wrong way," we'd have a messed up legal system.

I see where the woman would be entitled to some damages, but I wouldn't equate it to amputating the wrong leg, if only because you have all sorts of other health/morbidity concerns with that.

I honestly don't know what I would equate it with, only because I've never heard of anything like this before. I could see the mother/victim being entitled to something, I'm just not sure what that "something" would be. Have the physician or his insurance company pay for the costs associated with putting the baby up for adoption? Emotional and psychological damages? Did she suffer any lasting physical harm from the child birth?

Of course maybe it's best for her this happened in Massachusetts, where the court system doesn't mind going out on a limb.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I know my analogy isn't exactly the same thing, but it's a bummer that people on this thread can't get past the emotional "OMG A BABY ISN'T A BAD THING" because for some people, it is and for some people, having an unwanted baby probably sucks just as much as having a leg amputated by accident

Exactly!!