# Oklahoma law: doctors can't be sued for hiding birth defects from parents **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572 "2010-04-27T22:53:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/141 "2010-04-28T21:29:04Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > I’m sure all the pro-life people will be here soon to argue against these laws. After all, in the threads about pharmacists dispensing morning after pills, the pro-life people argue passionately that a medical professional should not be forced to do anything if it goes against their moral values. Yes, but they shouldn’t be able to lie. > [@](#): > > Since a doctor could very well have a moral objection to shoving a probe up a rape victim’s vagina, or feel that describing a fetus in detail to a woman an hour before aborting it is poor medical practice, I’m sure all these same people who argued so eloquently for the pharmacists rights will be along any second now to argue the same on behalf of the doctors, right? Yes, I would. Anyone wanna take the other side. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/142 "2010-04-28T21:31:16Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > I stand corrected. > > The reason I asked is because my wife has undergone extensive fertility treatments, eventually leading to a full term pregnancy, and in the course of that has had many transvaginal ultrasounds. For quite a few things they give the best view. In fact, it wasn’t until the fetus was a few months along that the regular ultrasound could see anything. Transvaginal does give a much clearer view, which is exactly why you’d want it for monitoring a problematic but wanted pregnancy, and exactly why you wouldn’t be bothered with it when all you want to do is determine gestational age of a fetus that’s about to be aborted. I mean, I’m sure that some places do routinely use a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion because they happen to have it on hand. And frankly I don’t believe that having the ultrasound transvaginally is hugely invasive, given the procedure to follow. Again, it’s not the ultrasound itself, it’s the fact that they’re using the ultrasound as a tool to harass these women. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/143 "2010-04-28T21:31:33Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > But the idea that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is “ultimately a hate movement against women” is ridiculous. Do some of the people involved hate women? I’m sure some do. But most are concerned with what they see as a human life, and protecting that life, however misguided you and I might think that concern is. The majority are not trying to hate on women; most do not think that women are evil. Garbage; they consistently act like people who hate women, and like people who don’t care in the slightest about the “babies” they supposedly want to save. It’s the people who insist that it just isn’t possible that they hate women (because hate groups are such a bizarre and unknown concept:rolleyes:) in the face of their consistently anti-woman behavior who are being ridiculous. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, someone who hated woman might want to make them wear a scarlet letter, or force them to be publicly shamed in some way. Someone who hated women might want to do all sorts of things beyond what this particular law does. But they can’t get away with that anymore; they CAN get away with this law. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > While I agree that it is horrible to legally protect doctors for lying to their patients I don’t think the pro-life movement is ultimately a hate movement against women. Isn’t it possible that some people think that fetuses are human? Then they’d act like it. Instead they do everything they can to hurt the woman, and show no concern for the health of the fetus, or of the child they force to be born, or even of whether or not their actions lower the amount of abortions. They don’t care about abortion or about fetuses, except as far as they can be used as a weapon against women. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/144 "2010-04-28T21:32:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oddly enough… yes. > > I agree with this point. Abortion should be outlawed. But this is not the way to do it. It’s currently a legal medical procedure, and any measure that requires a physician to perform against his convictions shouldn’t be permitted to stand. > > I think the rape and incest objection is a bogus one, as I explained above. But I don’t favor this law for precisely the reason you articulate above: it’s not appropriate to mandate this action. baby killer. smiley 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/145 "2010-04-28T21:34:12Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > In regard to the liability shield for not notifying the patient about prenatal findings, ISTM that this would tend to prevent a prospective parent from exercising informed consent when deciding to continue a pregnancy. Is this really a wise reason for the State to step between the physicians it licenses and accountability for their errors? Hell no, it isn’t wise. For that matter, as I posted earlier, I think it either violates medical ethics, or it should. The problem is that an unwise law is not necessarily unconstitutional. To strike the shield law, a plaintiff would have to show that it somehow infringes upon a Constitutionally protected interest. I haven’t seen anyone identify such a right or interest allegedly violated by the shield law. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/146 "2010-04-28T21:41:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Garbage; they consistently act like people who hate women, and like people who don’t care in the slightest about the “babies” they supposedly want to save. It’s the people who insist that it just isn’t possible that they hate women (because hate groups are such a bizarre and unknown concept:rolleyes:) in the face of their consistently anti-woman behavior who are being ridiculous. Bullshit. Broad brush attacks on everyone who disagrees with you is not persuasive, nor does it fight ignorance. It is, in fact, possible to take a principled stand against abortion without hating women. Some of the people that do so ARE women. This is true now, it was true yesterday, and it will continue to be true tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/147 "2010-04-28T21:49:21Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Hell no, it isn’t wise. For that matter, as I posted earlier, I think it either violates medical ethics, or it should. The problem is that an unwise law is not necessarily unconstitutional. To strike the shield law, a plaintiff would have to show that it somehow infringes upon a Constitutionally protected interest. I haven’t seen anyone identify such a right or interest allegedly violated by the shield law. I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t a reasonably comptetent one be able to craft an argument that the constitution protects a person’s right to petition the courts for relief against tortious injuries? I know you’ve mentioned that legislatures frequently carve out exceptions for various torts but, ISTM that this is a pretty big one. Is “rational basis” (no matter how speculatively flimsy) an absolute trump against potential harm?\* ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/148 "2010-04-28T21:57:03Z")
Missed the edit window: 'Cos in that circumstance “rational basis” strikes me equating to “fig leaf,” and that’s roughly as abhorrent to me as “fishing expedition” in other types of cases. IfyouknowwhatImean. \*BTW, I’m not sure that “potential harm” is _le mot juste_ that I’m looking for, but I’m blanking on whatever is. Please bear with me. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/149 "2010-04-28T21:57:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t a reasonably comptetent one be able to craft an argument that the constitution protects a person’s right to petition the courts for relief against tortious injuries? Perhaps, but this law doesn’t remove all tort claims. This law eliminates one potential tort claim–malpractice for failure to disclose birth defects. Let’s say a doctor chooses to rely on this law, and refuses to disclose birth defects. He also commits one or more other acts of professional malpractice–botches the delivery, leaves surgical instruments in the woman’s body, gives a bad prescription, or otherwise violates the applicable standard of care. He’s still gonna get sued, and held liable on multiple theories…just not for withholding the information about the birth defect. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/150 "2010-04-28T22:03:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Perhaps, but this law doesn’t remove all tort claims. This law eliminates one potential tort claim–malpractice for failure to disclose birth defects. > > Let’s say a doctor chooses to rely on this law, and refuses to disclose birth defects. He also commits one or more other acts of professional malpractice–botches the delivery, leaves surgical instruments in the woman’s body, gives a bad prescription, or otherwise violates the applicable standard of care. He’s still gonna get sued, and held liable on multiple theories…just not for withholding the information about the birth defect. What if the doctor _doesn’t_ commit any other acts of professional malpractice; just refuses to disclose a birth defect that would have been correctable via prenatal surgery. The pregnancy progresses toward an otherwise uneventful birth. Is the doctor liable for having effectively prevented the parents from seeking the corrective surgery? ET: I note that your response does not address my question about the absolute primacy with which “rational basis” is regarded. ---
**Author:** ![anu-la1979](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anu-la1979](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anu-la1979)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/151 "2010-04-28T22:04:39Z")
Which means that a doctor could fail to follow up and inform prospective parents about a blood test that revealed the foetus had Down’s Syndrome, right? Because he felt there was a likelihood the parents were going to elect to terminate? I’m curious as to why OB-GYNs need this special liability shield. Why don’t we follow this up to shield doctors from lawsuits resulting from “failing to disclose” the results of pap smears, general blood tests, STD status, oncology reports and the like? Why stop here? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/152 "2010-04-28T22:20:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Garbage; they consistently act like people who hate women, and like people who don’t care in the slightest about the “babies” they supposedly want to save. It’s the people who insist that it just isn’t possible that they hate women (because hate groups are such a bizarre and unknown concept:rolleyes:) in the face of their consistently anti-woman behavior who are being ridiculous. > > But they can’t get away with that anymore; they CAN get away with this law. > Then they’d act like it. Instead they do everything they can to hurt the woman, and show no concern for the health of the fetus, or of the child they force to be born, or even of whether or not their actions lower the amount of abortions. They don’t care about abortion or about fetuses, except as far as they can be used as a weapon against women. Speaking so broadly about the motivations of such a diverse group of people is what is garbage. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/153 "2010-04-28T22:45:02Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Bullshit. Broad brush attacks on everyone who disagrees with you is not persuasive, nor does it fight ignorance. It is, in fact, possible to take a principled stand against abortion without hating women. Some of the people that do so ARE women. This is true now, it was true yesterday, and it will continue to be true tomorrow. Irrelevant, unless they actually DO take an anti-abortion behavior for a “principled” reason, and few if any do. They simply don’t act like it. Their behavior contradicts their supposed principles, which are vile principles anyway. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Speaking so broadly about the motivations of such a diverse group of people is what is garbage. So it would also be garbage to call all the people who supported the enslavement of blacks racist? This is a standard defense of right wing behavior; you aren’t supposed to condemn it unless you judge each and every person individually; which, conveniently for the Right is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/154 "2010-04-28T22:51:53Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Transvaginal does give a much clearer view, which is exactly why you’d want it for monitoring a problematic but wanted pregnancy, and exactly why you wouldn’t be bothered with it when all you want to do is determine gestational age of a fetus that’s about to be aborted. > > I mean, I’m sure that some places do routinely use a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion because they happen to have it on hand. And frankly I don’t believe that having the ultrasound transvaginally is hugely invasive, given the procedure to follow. Again, it’s not the ultrasound itself, it’s the fact that they’re using the ultrasound as a tool to harass these women. Absolutely, I don’t disagree with you here. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/155 "2010-04-28T22:53:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Irrelevant, unless they actually DO take an anti-abortion behavior for a “principled” reason, and **few if any do.** The bolding is mine. The bolded phrase is a factual assertion. I would like a cite for the proposition that “few if any” abortion opponents have principled reasons for their position on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/156 "2010-04-28T23:11:04Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > The bolding is mine. The bolded phrase is a factual assertion. I would like a cite for the proposition that “few if any” abortion opponents have principled reasons for their position on the issue. Their behavior. For example, they pass a law forbidding a particular kind of late term abortion with their so-called “partial birth abortion ban”. That didn’t reduce the number of late term abortions; it just outlawed the safest kind. The only effect it had was to endanger women - which of course was the point. Where is the big push for adoptions of unwanted children? Pre-natal care? Anything that shows that they actually care about the “babies” they make speeches about? There is no such big push, because they don’t actually care. And for that matter here’s an old thought experiment. Suppose you had the choice of saving one child, or a canister full of a thousand frozen embryos. You can only save one; which do you save? Someone who actually believed the nonsense that an embryo is a person would save the canister, but good luck finding an anti-abortionist who will take that position. They don’t actually take their own claims seriously; it’s just an excuse for their crusade against women. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/157 "2010-04-28T23:14:54Z")
That’s not a cite. That’s your opinion. Waiting is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/158 "2010-04-28T23:22:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Objection! Relevance! Foundational. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/159 "2010-04-28T23:35:21Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > What is an informal legal argument? There are only 4 hits on google, and none are informative. Formal legal argument, on the other hand, yields an ample bounty and some pretty good definitions. An informal legal argument is a term I have crafted by analogy to your earlier posts. It is to a formal legal argument as an informal argument is to a formal argument. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/160 "2010-04-28T23:37:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > So it would also be garbage to call all the people who supported the enslavement of blacks racist? Is that supposed to be an analogy? To call it a “bad” one would be an understatement. I guess it could have been worse if you compared it to Hitler… > [@](#): > > This is a standard defense of right wing behavior; you aren’t supposed to condemn it unless you judge each and every person individually; which, conveniently for the Right is impossible. No, it’s going to be true of many political positions, whether left or right, when we’re literally talking about 10s of millions of people. You add nothing to this debate by throwing around unsupported accusations of hate motivated behavior. Nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=9)