I notice you conveniently cropped you with the face’s quote. The full quote being:
Deceiving someone into making a decision is preventing them, just as much as if you forced them at gunpoint. Only the methodology is different, not the result.
I mentioned that on the first page, quoting this story.
I sure did. Reason I did that is the portion I deleted is a bad analogy, involving an entirely different body of law, and detailed rebuttal thereof would require yet another hijack of this thread.
On an unrelated note, I think this is the docket sheet for the pending challenge to the ultrasound law. Can’t be sure, because the pleadings do not appear to be available at that site.
I see I also deleted the set up, where she asked for the test, and indicated intent to abort if positive. Does not change my response, didn’t see the need to quote it.
It’s a good analogy, and the “body of law” involved is irrelevant to it. The point (obviously) is that in both cases people are being deceived. If the law holds that it is allowable for doctors to deceive their patients, that’s wrong regardless of what the law says.
I know there are various national medical associations; they should all blacklist, expel or otherwise disassociate any doctor who actually takes advantage of this law, for life, in order to protect the reputation and ethics of the profession. And publicize the names in public service announcements, so everyone in the world knows to never trust such a “doctor” professionally, ever.
If she sees another doctor in OK who gives her the same run around, she will be not be provided with the information she needs to get an abortion.
If its constitutional for a state-licensed professional to deceive patients with legal impunity just as long as the patient bases their objection on the act being a barrier to abortion, is it constitutional for a state-licensed polling official to deceive would-be voters with impunity just as long as the disenfranchised person claims this act was a barrier to voting? Because I don’t see a big difference between lying to a patient to prevent them from getting an abortion and lying to a citizen to prevent them from voting Republican. Both, that I’m aware of, are federally-protected rights. Maybe there is some lawerly difference between the two things that I’m not seeing here, though.
As the law is written, a doctor could knowingly lie to a woman about her pregnancy status and not be accountable for it in some instances. If every doctor she goes to lies to her face about her being pregnant so that she can’t get an abortion, what legal recourse could she take if it’s too late for her to get an abortion by the time she diagnoses herself?
Also, you never answered my question about Roe vs. Wade . Do you agree that with the legal basis for this ruling? If not, then that goes to show that there is plenty of room for judicial interpretation as it concerns the legal soundness of these laws.
We’ve already had the wrong, distasteful, very bad, and otherwise icky poo, but not obviously unconstitutional discussion.
The pollworker has a legal obligation to provide a voter with the proper ballot. Intentionally providing a phony ballot is a criminal act.
The doctor has no legal obligation to perform an abortion in a non-life threatening situation, and would not be committing a criminal act by refusing to do so.
Even if the parents were going to abort the pregnancy over a minor deformity, and even if we all agreed that this was a bad thing, I still wouldn’t consider concealing medical information from the parents to be a reasonable solution to that problem.
Morally speaking, the mother at least has a right to know all medical details concerning her pregnancy . . . even if she’ll make bad decisions as a result of this knowledge.
Well, no duh. You know damn well I’m not arguing that docs are obligated to perform abortions.
Calling it dismissive names like “icky poo” doesn’t make it any less a breach of professional ethics, not to mention misogynistic and outright evil. Any doctor who does such a thing deserves the destruction of his reputation and of his career.
And that’s why your poll worker analogy fails. The poll worker is not in a situation comparable to the doctor. You’re attempting to equate two very different things. It doesn’t work.
It works fine; in both cases they are manipulating people, deceiving them while in a position of trust and undercutting an important institution by destroying that trust.
For the what…fifth time? sixth?..in this thread…
I do not like or condone the ultrasound law or the malpractice shield. I think they are poor policy and unwise. This does not mean they are unconstitutional.
There is a simple way this law can be defeated without court challenges. Planned Parenthood or other such organizations can offer a review of prenatal test results. I believe a doctor is legally obligated to release test results to a patient or to a third party designated by the patient. The test results can be evaluated (even out of state) and an indication of birth defects detected. if there is such an indication, the patient can be re-examined by a trustworthy physician.
An interesting option would be to publish the names of doctors who lied to their patients - with the consent of the patient, of course. Perhaps they cannot be sued, but they could be called up on ethics charges. I would suspect the examining physician would quickly note any missing test results, which would also trigger a reexamination.
Question: while the law permits the doctor to not tell the patient, how about putting the information in the patient’s medical record? If it is there, the patient could request it and see for herself. If the information is not put into the record, and thus not available for other physicians during the birth, would there be a malpractice suit possible?
First, using a dismissive names like “icky poo” when referring to complaints about it undercuts your claims that you actually oppose the law. As does your constant attempt to ignore analogies about how bad it is, and selectively quoting people to leave out the more important parts of their arguments. As does your attempt to pretend that manipulating people by lying to them doesn’t qualify as preventing people from doing something.
And second; so what? It’s still just as wrong regardless of how legal it is or not. It’s still a major breach of professional ethics. It still wounds the reputation and effectiveness of doctors in general if they get a reputation as a class of legally protected liars. It’s still something that medical professional groups should act on, even it the courts decide that it is just fine.
Perhaps it doesn’t change your response, but I wonder if you’ve fully considered the implications of you with the face’s hypothetical:
This seems to be a case of a patient who knows what she wants, and has affirmatively attempted to obtain it from her doctor: the results of a genetic test.
Now, right there in the text of the bill, a doctor is indemnified “if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion.” This seems to suggest that the physician is shielded, not only if [s]he fails to report that the test indicates a positive result, but if [s]he flat out lies and reports that the test indicates a negative result.
Let’s leave wrongful birth out of it for a moment. I would like to presume that an adult has a consitutionally protected right to not be defrauded by the provider with whom he or she has contracted to receive health services. This strikes me as a constitutionally protected right to receive truthful information about the services that have been provided, including accurate information about test results. ISTM that (absent certain circumstances related to the welfare of the patient) a patient who has been lied to about the results of a test has a cause of action against the physician who has told the lie.
If I’m correct in my presumptions, it appears that the state of Oklahoma has just passed into law a provision that the patient forfeits that right by saying the magic words “I intend to terminate this pregnancy in the event of test result [X]”
Can such an affront to patient autonomy and the doctrine of informed consent being protected by the state be defended as constitutional?
So back to the hypothetical: Doctor performs the genetic testing, lies about the result, and the baby is born with Townes-Brocks Syndrome, pretty strong evidence that the doctor lied. The patient lawyers up, the test results are subpoenaed and reviewed, and the lie is confirmed. Patient sues the doctor, not for wrongful birth, but for fraud.
Doctor uses the shield law as a defense. Does he get to?
And what if patients bring a contract, which states the doctor agrees not to lie to them about potential issues. Would this contract be unenforceable under the law? What if not revealing the defects puts the mother’s life at risk, even slightly?
What part of the Constitution includes that right? I am not aware of any caselaw on point.
The statute is presumed to be constitutional. The burden is on the moving party, ie, the person challenging the law, to show how and/or why the law is unconstitutional.
I don’t know. Fraud is a whole other kettle of fish. I expect some creative plaintiff’s lawyer may test that theory, along with several others.
Not my area of strength, so I’ll ask instead of speculate: does this liability law only rmove available torts? If the women had a “gimme the whole truth” contract, could an action sound in contract against the doctor?