Here’s all the stories pertaining… I’m sure this will turn into an interesting debate.
Well, another tangent to the abortion debate to consider!
First of all, the second and third links are pretty meaningless editorials, taking different sides but only the opinions of the writer, so I shall discount them.
Now, looking at the other three links, it seems that the evidence is going against Ruth Ann Burns. The jury will decide, but based on the reporting I’ve seen, I don’t think she’ll get a dime. The fact that the father makes 80 grand a year doesn’t exactly elicit sympathy from a jury either.
I feel horrible for everyone involved, especially Nicholas. Nobody ever seems to consider the kids in anything they do these days, do they? And wanted or not, he is a kid now. I’ve seen the way kids whose mothers say to them later in life things like, “I wanted to abort you,” or “I was ready to put you up for adoption,” and the effects this has. How is this kid gonna deal growing up with THIS in his past?
Getting away from the ethics of the woman doing this to begin with and the particulars of this individual case, this increases my resolve that there should be no laws prohibiting abortion, even the late-term variety.
Imagine a woman who is genuinely not told until late in term that she is pregnant (it is documented that some women will actually give birth not knowing they were pregnant), and this woman genuinely and immediately does not want a kid. Imagine further that she was seeing a doctor all the time, and that his errors in diagnosing it is directly responsible for her not finding out until she was late into the 2nd trimester.
This is probably a rare case, but I would want the laws to not hurt this person in making the correct choice, especially when responsibility on her part means nothing if both birth control and her physician lets her down.
If there ever was a legitimate case of this, I think a can of worms would be opened. But for this case itself, I think it’s gonna be dismissed.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, three days, 13 hours, 16 minutes and 42 seconds.
1342 cigarettes not smoked, saving $167.76.
Life saved: 4 days, 15 hours, 50 minutes.
I find it extraordinary that this issue has not come before your courts before (or at least that precedent has not been sufficiently established).
In Australia, it has long been established that there is no action for “wrongful life”.
I found it strange that adoption was never mentioned. And even stranger that she’s had three previous abortions due to “malfunctioning birth control” (or did I read this wrong?).
Personally, I think she’s owed nothing except contempt.
From what I gather, they aren’t considering adoption now because they’ve grown to “love” Nicholas. abundant sarcasm Yeah. Right. Sure.
Okay, so the woman is at best gravely misguided and at worst a money-grubbing piece of shit. I think we can all agree on that (from the limited evidence we got anyway).
But let’s expand this to other woman, like the hypothetical one I listed in my other post. Would that woman have a legitimate beef? Or is there never justification for a civil suit of some sort because of something like this?
Or would a simple malpractice suit cover it and not get into the bad feelings this case obvious gives off?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, three days, 18 hours, 55 minutes and 49 seconds.
1351 cigarettes not smoked, saving $168.94.
Life saved: 4 days, 16 hours, 35 minutes.
Seems to me that she (and any other woman in the same circumstances) would be out of luck. The doc gave her a pregnancy test before putting her on birth control and it was negative. When her pregnancy was detected, there was still plenty of time for an abortion, but she decided to take a vacation instead. And now she blames the doc for a healthy baby?
Interestingly (and thankfully) Nicholas was born healthy, even though his mother was on birth control during the early weeks of pregnancy. That’s more of a miracle than medical malpractice. Certain meds can cause major birth defects.
If this were a woman who didn’t believe in having abortions, and the doc didn’t test her for pregnancy first, then I’d think she’d have some recourse. If she had the baby and gave it up for adoption, there might be a negligent infliction of emotional distress case. If the baby had birth defects, there could be a recovery for his care. But if a test was made, no pregnancy found and a mother with no qualms about having an abortion decided to go on vacation rather than terminate her pregnancy, it’s her problem, not the doctors. Poor kid–I hope he grows up okay.
-
If she wanted an abortion, why did she go on vacation instead of requesting that the doctors determine how far along she was?
-
If she didn’t want a child, why didn’t she give the baby up for adoption? There are plenty of couples who would like nothing more than to adopt a baby.
It seems to me that Ruth is the one who was negligent, not her doctors.
Ok, here’s a question. Could a case be built for mental abuse against the parents? I mean, we have written proof where both of them say Nicholas should never have been born. They’re blaming their “failed dreams and business oppurtunities” on him, blaming the father’s work schedule on him, blaming van and mortage payments on him… Surely, this counts as mental abuse. Whaddya think Dopers? Are the parents being abusive?
Not yet, probably. According to the article, the child is now two years old, most likely too young to understand what is going on. Though if this continues until the child is old enough to realize that his parents didn’t want him, I imagine they’d be guilty of abuse.
So far as Satan’s hypothetical goes, I think that a woman who did not find out she was pregnant until it was too late to have an abortion (through the fault of doctors) should be allowed to sue for the cost of the delivery/hospital stay (minus the cost of the (desired) abortion) and providing that logically, she gives the unwanted baby up for adoption, she could sue for time off from work for “recuperation” time and possible damage to her body.
As far as compensation if she should keep the baby, I am undecided. My first instinct is to say that no compensation is due but I’ll have to think about it more.
On a personal level, I think these ‘parents’ should be slapped into the next millenium.
But our country as a whole is comepletely sue-happy. IMHO, just because something happened to you doesn’t mean it was someone elses fault. And if it wasn’t their fault, then they don’t owe you squat.
Doctors are not gods, they are people. They are expected to make an exact diagnosis from ambiguous symptoms. The doctors in this case did what they were supposed to do. They ordered the correct tests. Sometimes tests give back the wrong results. I don’t think there is any test that gives the correct results 100% of the time.
But this is the US of A, and here we assume the wrong and file the lawsuit
Is this a hijack?
I’m with evilbeth… as long as the child was given up for adoption. But if she decides to keep the baby, then the doctors can’t logically be held responsible for that decision.