Poster child for pro-choice
-
-
@dangeRuss there is a currently proposed bill to reverse a judgement (wrongful birth) that was in favor of a poster child for pro-choice... something this is not even close to being.
-
@darkmatter said in Poster child for pro-choice:
@dangeRuss there is a currently proposed bill to reverse a judgement (wrongful birth) that was in favor of a poster child for pro-choice... something this is not even close to being.
A what?
-
-
So you could previously sue a doctor for delivering a baby with Down syndrome? Like "I got a faulty product from you, please pay damages"? I don't even know how to react to that level of absurdity.
-
@asdf I think is a good start
-
@asdf Basically they wanna give rights to mothers to kill kids after they are born.
-
@lucas1 said in Poster child for pro-choice:
@asdf Basically they wanna give rights to mothers to kill kids after they are born.
What?
No, that's basically not what it says?
-
@asdf said in Poster child for pro-choice:
So you could previously sue a doctor for delivering a baby with Down syndrome? Like "I got a faulty product from you, please pay damages"? I don't even know how to react to that level of absurdity.
Not quite an accurate representation of what the law means.
If the doctor knew and intentionally withheld from you that the baby had Down's Syndrome then yes, or if the doctor refused to perform tests and assured you that everything is ok despite your asking for testing.The case that created the wrongful birth was a situation where a woman got Rubella early in her pregnancy - Rubella in the 50s/60s was worse than zika now, it all but guaranteed horrible problems for the baby, if it managed to survive at all.
It happened to be a few years after the huge Rubella wave had crested, and her physician wrote off her concerns about a rash and fever she had and did not test her even though she had specifically asked if she might have rubella, and he knew she was pregnant. Her body actually attempted to miscarry the fetus not once but three times, all three times they administered drugs to keep the pregnancy going.
Turned out that she did have Rubella, and the child was born with problems so severe that it was basically a human shell - they can't see, talk, hear, move, or pretty much anything else. The mother sued the doctor, saying that if he had bothered to test her instead of dismissing her concerns, she would have terminated when she found out the fetus would have almost no chance at fully developing.
So no, delivering a "faulty product" is not something you can be sued for.
Refusing to help the mother diagnose by misleading or hiding a problem - that is what you can be sued for.
-
@darkmatter Thanks for the clarification. I was starting to lose my faith in humanity.
-
@sloosecannon That is the consequence it infers.
-
@lucas1 said in Poster child for pro-choice:
@sloosecannon That is the consequence it infers.
No, no it's not...