It looks to me like the story has been over simplified. There were ultrasound tests later that indicated that the baby might have Downs and the doctor ignored that results even though he knew or should have known that the original tests were fallible. He should have ordered further tests.
That just proves to me that you need to do your own research and be prepared to shop for a second opinion if it that there is a significant chance that the doctor is wrong. Even a competent physician can make a mistake when the actual problem is outside their specialty.
My point was that, unlike a chromosomally normal child, there are fewer parents out there willing to adopt a child with Down’s Syndrome. Therefore, one should not simply assume that “give the child up for adoption” is a viable option. Sure, great if you can find someone to take the kid but that’s going to be harder than if you had a normal kid to place. As noted, courts are reluctant to terminate parental rights unless there is someone else willing to take the child immediately.
In other words: Kid with normal chromosomes? If put up for adoption should be placed very, very quickly due to demand.
Kid with Down’s? May be more difficult to place, as not so many are willing or able to take care of such a child.
This. I have a child who is a couple months shy of a year and a half. I’m in my 20s. I am in good health. There isn’t any family history that would have suggested a need for fetal testing and, in fact, we didn’t plan on doing any of it and our doctor agreed wholeheartedly.
One early ultrasound (I want to say 14 weeks; I went to the ER with severe pain, sweating, nausea, etc. and thought I might be losing the pregnancy) showed what appeared to be some physical abnormalities in the forehead region which may indicate Down (or the more horrifying (or perhaps less, depending on how you look at it, I guess) Edwards). Granted, I didn’t have a previous CVS that had come back negative, even with no other reason to test that one image was enough for my doctor to say, “Hey, if this is important to you, maybe we should talk about it.”
My point is, even with the previous negative result, the ultrasound findings should have been enough for a repeat CVS, if nothing else.
I personally don’t think it should matter if the doctor didn’t do anything wrong. The results are the same. The chance of a doctor being wrong should ideally be so low that the financial cost when they are wrong is worth it. That’s the level of care we need.
I do hold doctors to a higher standard than any other profession because they hold our very lives in their hands. Just because they didn’t do anything wrong doesn’t mean that the problems don’t still happen. And unless there is a safety net for these people, the only other choice is to take money from the doctors.
Except they’re not taking it from the doctors. They’re taking it from all the other patients in the healthcare system, because the cost of malpractice insurance coverage is factored into the physicians’ fees. Guess what happens to those fees when the cost of malpractice insurance rises as a result of very large or frequent payouts?
I’m not saying this lawsuit wasn’t warranted; I don’t know enough about the particulars in this case to have an informed opinion either way. But people need to understand that the costs of malpractice suits is ultimately borne by the healthcare system as a whole. It’s not free money. Filing a malpractice suit merely because a bad outcome occurred, rather than because there’s been actual malpractice, ultimately hurts everyone.
It looks like a case of my personal pet peeve: doctors more interested in what the tests say than what their patient looks like. If they saw things on ultrasound that conflicted with what they saw on the lab results, the reasonable and prudent thing to do is to figure out why that apparent conflict exists. In other words…more tests. Repeat the CVS, at the very least. Do an amniocentesis instead. Something!
For me, the actionable offense isn’t the incorrect test result, it’s the improper dismissal of other test results (ultrasounds) and the patient’s legitimate concerns about her advanced age. You just don’t reassure someone that a medical condition is an impossibility when it isn’t.
I’m pretty fond of tort reform, but yes, this is a case where, if it were I, I’d sue. Not sue for an obscene amount of money for punitive damages or anything, but yes, I’d sue for a reasonable amount to cover my daughter’s anticipated medical and therapy bills.
My son is thirteen, but there were waiting kids with Downs and other birth defects in the foster care system when we adopted. Minnesota didnt tend to have many newborns entering foster care, but birth defects and maternal drug or alcohol use give a surrendered child s non zero chance of ending up there.
Doctors told my parents that my youngest sister had Down’s (this was in 1993 though). She does not. There is a stated margin of error with these tests, and this certainly isn’t something I would sue for…
If I had been a juror, I would’ve voted to grant them their case, anyway. At that point, I’d be thinking about the welfare of the child, not the test itself.
Are you arguing that parents don’t have a right to accurate medical information about their children because all children have problems? That would seem to be very silly.
I think she’s referring to the medical expenses the child will have. The lawsuit is supposed to cover those.
Of course I’m not saying that. I don’t see the implication.
I’m saying Down Syndrome is just one small risk out of many in having children. No child is perfect.
Ah, I see. That’s possible. But for the record, I have encountered people who have said what I took this poster to be saying. (Though I was careful to pose my response as a question in case I was wrong).
How many infants with Down Syndrome have you adopted? Adopted before they were fully examined–to determine whether they would be the relatively high-functioning ones you have met or the ones who are not so much “fun”?
