Wrongful Birth Bill passes in Arizona

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

My question really would be the justification for suing for "wrongful birth". Like I'm 32. I'm healthy. No family history of diseases that would require an amnio. Since I'm not 35+, I'm not required to get an amnio. So for me all I would have is the ultrasounds. Now, I'm not a medical professional, but it seems that there are some "birth defects" that a plain old 2-d ultrasound isn't going to show.

So if I had a child, let's say next year, and my child was born with down's, for me it's legally how could I even sue. I'm not at the age that an amnio is required, that is the only way to detect DS, so therefore my doctor didn't know. What justification would I have to sue him/her?

Like others have said, I see this as a pandora's box. Let's abort the children who aren't "perfect" (a la Hitler). To me it seems incredibly selfish of the parents and even the child. The parents are saying "I would have aborted my child, but now I'm stuck with them", what the hell does that say to the kid! It says "You're not wanted!!!!" Then the person suing for wrongful life, that is just an oxymoron in its self.

I'm brain dead, so I don't remember the name of the blood test but there is a standard blood test that can tell whether there is a possibility of certain problems such as spina bifida, Down's, etc. It has a very, very high false positive rate but if you do test positive, they do an amnio to verify whether it is a false positive or not. When I was pregnant, I actually refused this test for a couple reasons. First, I was an Occupational Therapist so I figured if God felt like it was my role to mother and nurture a special needs child, I had the resources and knowledge to do so. Second, the false positive rate was so high that I didn't want to go through the worry. I figured it wouldn't make a different to me either way in how I prepared for being a mother.

That said, it was MY decision to refuse that test. If I had that test and was not told the truth about the results, I would be LIVID.

I have read what MC says about the bill, which seems to contradict what the people who sponsored it say to the media, so it's really confusing to most of us. Since it is a patient's right, through HIPAA, to view their medical record, I don't see how withholding medical information from a patient is ever ok.

[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.

[AOII Angel]

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...