Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

[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.

[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.

[shinerbock]

Don't be absurd, everything is an abortion debate. If its in front of a jury, you bet your ass it'll be an abortion debate.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Don't be absurd, everything is an abortion debate. If its in front of a jury, you bet your ass it'll be an abortion debate.

That's because people are silly and women's body parts are property.

But it isn't an abortion debate.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Don't be absurd, everything is an abortion debate. If its in front of a jury, you bet your ass it'll be an abortion debate.

The judge would probably be able to set aside any jury verdict based on the defenses which will be raised. Also, I'm sure the judge will keep a very tight leash on plaintiff's counsel regarding discussions of the morality of abortion.

Of course, the door swings both ways -- the defense would be able to show the jury a picture of the baby the plaintiff wanted to abort and is now simply trying to turn into a pay day by suing the good doctor who is only fulfilling a need of society. The plaintiff will be portrayed as being just as morally culpable (if that discussion even occurs), not to mention litigious and only looking for a pay day.

[shinerbock]

This is the attitude that sickens me. I'm not a person ready to overturn Roe, but the idea that the unborn are just disposable disgusts me.

Also, while I have no intention of starting an abortion debate, I'll say whatever I damn well please about it. Thanks.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

No one said you couldn't say whatever you damn well pleased.

If a woman wants to dispose of a fetus until a certain stage of its existence, that's her right. Just like men have certain rights around the world. If folks want to speak out against "murder" or "genocide," there are plenty of out-of-the-fetal-stage forms of it they can protest against. Girls and women are being victimized across the globe.

Until then, this woman's case isn't about the morality of abortion. As long as it's legal we can move on to the legal logistics of the case.

[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.

[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.