Thursday, March 22, 2012

Life is tort

Another "Wrongful Life" lawsuit:

Portland Couple Awarded $2.9M in Wrongful Birth Case; Say They Would Have Aborted Child

By Brittany Smith , Christian Post Reporter 
March 12, 2012|6:04 pm 
A jury in Portland, Ore., awarded a couple $2.9 million dollars on Friday for the "wrongful birth" of their daughter who has Down syndrome. 
Kalanit Levy was born in June of 2007 to Ariel and Deborah Levy, after prenatal testing did not reveal any abnormalities. 
The Levys' attorney said Dr. Thomas Jenkins removed maternal tissue – instead of the fetal tissue – from Deborah Levy's womb which resulted in faulty test readings. The suit also faults the medical center for reassuring Deborah Levy that her baby didn't have an extra 21st chromosome. 
The couple says they would have had an abortion had the test been done properly and they had known about the Down syndrome. 
It wasn't until a few days after Kalanit's birth that a blood test confirmed that the little girl had the genetic disorder. And now, four years later, the Levys are suing the hospital to pay for the extra costs of caring for their daughter. 
The Levys said in the suit that they worry about future medical problems and their daughter's ability to interact with others. They have been told by experts that Kalanit will most likely not be able to live on her own.

And while "wrongful birth" cases like the Levys' are rare because most prenatal birth tests are 99.7 percent accurate, Dr. Art Caplan, a bioethicist, wrote on MSNBC's medical blog, "Vitals," that "the very fact that such a case can make it into a courtroom reveals a lot that is wrong with public policy and ethics in America." He said the case ultimately gets at the heart of how society views and values life and "asks who should have to pay when that life is less than optimal."
He wrote, "Wrongful birth lawsuits are a horrible way to deal with failed prenatal testing. Forcing parents to argue that their child never should have been born may make legal sense but it is morally absurd." 
For Caplan, there is no reason to allow a wrongful birth case. He said the solution lies in allowing "some sort of no-fault insurance scheme under the supervision of neutral mediators, not a courtroom slugfest that demeans the value of a life with disability and reeks of eugenics." 
But wrongful birth lawsuits may become more common as technology advances, and as more women in their late 30s or 40s give birth. These expectant mothers will all come to rely on genetic screenings –none of which are 100 percent accurate. 
Studies already show that more than 85 percent of parents who learn through prenatal testing that a fetus has Down syndrome terminate the pregnancy. 
Dr. Jeff Myers, president of Summit Ministries, told The Christian Post that it's likely we will see more of these types of cases. He said this confusion over the ethics of life stems largely from abortion policies and the devaluing of human life. 
He told CP that doctors are now going to have to start defending themselves over test results. "I think they (doctors) will make the argument that parents can choose to abort [their child] after it's born." He said this will happen because they want to protect themselves from medical malpractice. 
For Myers, this is a big ethical issue, and one Christians need to get better at defending. "If I don't communicate [that a person is a human]," Myers said, "then I am ceding the right to make an argument about whether or not children should have value after birth."

Abortion is legally-sanctioned homicide. The fabrication by the Supreme Court several decades ago of this "right" to kill creates a legal conundrum: if you have a right to kill, what happens if you are prevented from killing by someone's negligence?

This happens: the fact that your prospective victim still lives is a harm you have suffered, and a harm for which you can be compensated. The life of the person you would have killed becomes actionable by tort.

Evil spawns evil. The "right to abortion" spawns infanticidal abattoirs and concealment of child rape and enrichment of hyenas with MD's and cash awards for parents of children who mistakenly lived.

Ariel and Deborah Levy got nearly three million dollars because a medical mistake saved their daughter from being killed... by them.

Little Kalanit has Down's syndrome. She'll probably never know how mummy and dada got those nice new cars and that really big house and that really big fun swimming pool. She'll never even ask.

Perhaps that's a blessing. 

38 comments:

  1. Michael,

    The couple had a screening test to detect significant non-remedial conditions.

    Amniocentesis with chorionic villus sampling for cytogenetics should be 100% accurate in detecting trisomy 21, provided fetal tissue is obtained.

    The test failed, the couple were injured in that the option of an abortion was removed from them, and the jury decided that the defendants were culpable, so damages were warranted.

    Culpable injury always leads to damages. Why don't you understand this? If you were a general surgeon, and accidentally left a swab in someone's abdominal cavity, you wouldn't be able to avoid being sued and having to pay damages (or at least your insurance company wouldn't) by claiming that occasionally surgeons and operating theatre nurses miscount swabs at the ends of operations in 0.3% of operations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The life of a child is not "culpable injury".

      Death is culpable injury, illness is culpable injury, disability is culpable injury.

      Life is not injury. Life is a blessing. All human life. No one is owed money because they were deprived of an opportunity to kill.

      Don't you see what evil we have kindled with abortion?

      Delete
    2. Just because *you* think every life is a blessing doesn't mean that your religious opinion is binding on everyone else. That's what you don't understand.

      Delete
    3. @anon:

      Litigation is all about opinion.

      To award the parents of this child damages means that the state has accepted the opinion that the very lives of certain people (handicapped children) contitute harm to others.

      Do you understand the horror of that viewpoint? Would it help if I explained it to you in German?

      Delete
    4. Just because *you* think every life is a blessing doesn't mean that your religious opinion is binding on everyone else. That's what you don't understand.

      So life is not a blessing to you.

      I do hope you will never have a loaded gun pointed at your head by someone who thinks exactly like you...

      BANG!

      And now you see the Truth and finally know Him!

      Delete
    5. Regarding his Antarctic(ish) cold response to this blog, I see bachfiend as sooooooo computer like (a.k.a. DOA: Devoid Of Any feelings, Dead On Arrival will come later...)

      I made an anagram with his moniker. Shows how much I care for him...

      Delete
    6. Sure, Herr Egnor, feel free to explain to me how Hitler's life was a blessing, in German.

      Delete
    7. Anon,
      "Sure, Herr Egnor, feel free to explain to me how Hitler's life was a blessing.."

      Another one of the things you have a hard time with is FREE WILL.
      Hitler CHOSE his path, his birth was not the choice but the potential for all he could be.
      Good or evil. Powerful or meek.
      Are you suggesting that an unborn child with Down's Syndrome, a cleft palate, or - GOD FORBID - who is female should be treated the same as an adult Hitler in the midst of perpetrating a genocide simply for being conceived?
      Is it your opinion that we should kill as many of these potential beings as possible just in case there is another Hitler waiting to be born?
      Why not start with yourself?
      You're a very intolerant person with a very elitist streak. You are pro Eugenic and have a real hate on for specific religious groups that you like to scapegoat. This is all very Hitler-like! Maybe you should stay away from beer halls and brown-shirts, or you may need to abort your own potential? Is that permitted in your religion of 'ME'?

      "[...] in German"
      Ins Knie ficken dein Selbst du troll!

      Delete
  2. "Culpable injury always leads to damages. Why don't you understand this?"

    I think he does understand this. What he's saying is, if I might be so bold as to translate for Dr. Egnor, that the "damage" they suffered was that they gave birth to a child, their own flesh and blood. They wish they had known so that they could have killed that child in the womb, back a little further in the gestation process when killing children is legal. They've passed that point now, and they're PISSED!

    And no one is suing anyone for leaving swabs inside of people. They're suing because they missed their opportunity to kill the mentally handicapped. I can't believe you're so obtuse that you can't see this.

    Hey, question Bachfiend: Is it moral to take a machine gun and go on a spree killing in a home for the mentally retarded?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I should have said the "injury" they suffered, rather than the damage.

      TRISH

      Delete
  3. The point, Bachfiend, is how sick we are as a society.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trish,

    They wanted a child without significant irremedial abnormalities, which trisomy 21 certainly is, so they underwent screening procedures, which failed to pick up the abnormality.

    No one undergoes amniocentesis for fun.

    If they didn't want a new child, they would have just had an abortion. It's still legal, remember?

    And no, it's not legal or moral to go on a killing spree with a machine gun in a 'home for the mentally retarded'.

    Incidentally, I thought you Christians insisted that the genetically challenged, such as those with trisomy 21, can live happy rewarding lives? So why would they be in homes for the mentally retarded.

    Actually, I agree. After birth, the aim should be to give the individuals affected the most rewarding lives possible. I occasionally see individuals with trisomy 21 either alone or with caregivers in public, and they seem happy enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They wanted a child without significant irremedial abnormalities..."

    So does everyone. But the child growing in the woman's womb didn't fit that description so they wanted to kill the child and start over again.

    "If they didn't want a new child, they would have just had an abortion. It's still legal, remember?"

    Yeah, that's the problem. It's legal to kill children in the womb. And when a wealthy couple misses their opportunity to kill a child they don't want, they get upset and start suing people.

    "And no, it's not legal or moral to go on a killing spree with a machine gun in a 'home for the mentally retarded'."

    Uh, why not? You're a big fan of killing the mentally handicapped, aren't you? They don't have much 'quality of life', blah, blah, blah. It's the same thing. Perhaps the scale is larger, but that's it.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Incidentally, I thought you Christians insisted that the genetically challenged, such as those with trisomy 21, can live happy rewarding lives? So why would they be in homes for the mentally retarded."

    I guess so. I just don't think it's your job to decide who will have a happy and rewarding life and appoint yourself executioner of the rest of humanity who won't. Also, what makes you think that happy rewarding lives and a home for the mentally retarded are mutually exclusive? At what point did I endorse them? You really are full of straw man argument today, aren't you?

    "Actually, I agree. After birth, the aim should be to give the individuals affected the most rewarding lives possible."

    How big of you. And before birth, they should be salt poisoned and stabbed in the back of the head. That's your position, isn't it?

    "I occasionally see individuals with trisomy 21 either alone or with caregivers in public, and they seem happy enough."

    Your problem is that you think that the morality of killing depends on their happiness. I know miserable people who aren't mentally handicapped. I don't take it upon myself to kill them. Get it out of your head that you're doing someone a favor by murdering them.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bachfiend's problem is that he conceives of the issue entirely wrong.

    He thinks that abortion is a way of preventing certain people from existing. That's how the abortion industry would like us think about it. The problem is that it isn't true.

    Abortion doesn't prevent mentally handicapped people from coming into existence. It kills already existing mentally handicapped people.

    Abortion doesn't make you "unpregnant". It makes you the mother of a dead baby.

    I would like all children to come with healthy brains and bodies. All of my children do, and that's great. The fact that some children exist who do not, however, is not an excuse to kill them.

    People who abort handicapped children like to tell you that they did it for the child. I'm not fooled. They did it because raising a handicapped child is expensive and exhausting. They did it to for themselves and then rationalized it as a favor to the dead kid.

    J.Q.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trish and JQ,

    Abortion is legal. If you think it should be illegal, why don't you go into politics, campaign for it to be made illegal, and if you get elected, unite with representatives of similar opinion, and get abortion made illegal by legislation?

    If you think that couples shouldn't be allowed to choose whether they can avoid having children with detectable although significant irremedial abnormalities by having antenatal screening procedures such as amniocentesis followed by abortion, then why don't you do the same for screening tests?

    It's a democracy after all. Most people would agree with the couple and not with you. The jury certainly did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bach,
      "Most people would agree with the couple and not with you."
      Not that I concede this point to any degree, Bach. But, even if your were correct these 'most people' wont be the 'most' for long at all (3 generations MAX?).
      Elementary mathematics.
      Abortion is an issue that will literally breed itself out. Families cannot help but prevail against those who decline to reproduce and MULTIPLY their numbers. No need to 'get into politics' (we all are in a representative based system), as it will be sheer demographics that put the PRO family people in the majority.
      The test of any such legal system will be in it's ability to return to a sane and moral law. Maybe you would call it 'un-natural selection' of the morally weak?

      Delete
    2. Abortion is an issue that will literally breed itself out.

      Because children always vote the same way their parents do. Wait, they don't. So your argument is bullshit.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Anon,
      "Because children always vote the same way their parents do. Wait, they don't."

      Voting? Is that how you folks make babies? At the ballot box?
      Nope, how sill of me! That is how you legitimize KILLING them.

      The reality for the rest of us:
      A child reared properly to adulthood is instilled with the core values of his or her parents in most cases. There are exceptions, and some children are just totally unlike their parents. But most of us who have lived long enough to see it, realize that is not the norm by any stretch.
      Note I said PROPERLY. Not raised by a television, hollywood or a video game machine, not raised with a sense of purposelessness or to think they are just an animal that 'seeks pleasure and avoids pain'. Raised with love, intimate care, and all the while enriched by their own culture and traditions.
      I have an adult son who is by no means identical to me in his political views, but he has a strong, stable sense of morality.
      That instilled morality has taught him, among other things, to be selective in his relations with the young men and women women in his life.
      That said it is a given he and the people he is friendly with are staunchly against the nihilistic mindset that produces the justifications for horrors such as abortion (or eugenics). They would not treat a DOG the way you suggest women and children be treated.
      These other young folks are also from homes similar in core values, but by no means identical to our own.
      One of the things about our son that makes me the most proud is the character of the people he surrounds himself with. They are good people with a strong work ethic, imbued with respect, and a pleasure to be around. He has never had to hide his friends and they have always been welcome in our home. He had his inevitable 'rebellion' period, like all young men - but he GREW UP.
      My son's intentions are to have a family of his own, WITH children. The young woman he hopes to do that with shares his dream of family. Some of his oldest pals already have a head start on them, but I am sure they will do some catch up in the near future.
      So, in that light, consider the willingly sterile 'me' generation that will at best have their 1.5 'perfect' children. You suggest that kids do not vote as their parents do. Will your 1.5 vote the same as you when they see they are surrounded by LARGE happy families with all sorts of siblings, cousins, and extended family that help for their entire lives? Or will they seek to give that gift of life to THEIR children? Even if we presume that you can impart this nihilistic self imposed sterility on them as ideology or religion, how will they stand in numbers compared to families like mine, or the MILLIONS of like-thinking immigrants you will NEED to import just to keep your economic engine running?
      Answer: They will not.
      It is simple math, really.
      You cannot hope to have even 2 out your 4 children who agree with you, if you have one, or NONE.
      You nightmarish utopia is a false promise made by people who deceive even themselves.

      "So your argument is bullshit."
      No, it is a mathematical inevitability.
      Your entire position is 'bullshit' or as I would prefer to call it: Evil.

      Delete
    5. Mike,
      Can you delete the previous double 'Royal Ripper' post on your end, please. I had posted on the home PC not realizing I was using my son's login for Google. Thanks!

      Delete
    6. CrusadeRex,

      For what's it worth, Steven Pinker in 'the Blank Slate' noted that for whatever psychological or mental trait you'd like to consider, about 50% of the variation is 'nature' (presumably genetic) and 50% 'nurture' (presumably environmental).

      Of the 50% nurture, somewhat less than 10% is familial and somewhat more than 40% is peer pressure, so according to Pinker, parental influence on the views of their children by direct example is minor.

      Although, of course parents can affect peer pressure on their children by enrolling them church based schools for example, so the children's friends and peers have similar attitudes and beliefs to their parents.

      Your statement that your son has similar views to your own is an anecdote. A good one, but still an anecdote, without much evidentiary value. I do note that you state that your son's friends have similar opinions. Peer pressure perhaps?

      Delete
    7. Bach,
      Considering the alchemical voodoo of men like Pinker is little counter to anecdotal evidence, such as my proud account of my son.
      Pinker's presumptions are as grand as any behavioural study including the classics & medieval (humours etc), and even my own meagre and largely undocumented (at least by myself) observations.
      The nature vs nurture stance is utterly lacking of an entire dimension: Willpower. This is neither physical or mental, but essential.
      Free will/choice is the operative power in these issues.
      Like the operation of a vehicle or weapon, one must be trained or counselled to use and control the will or it becomes either a hazard or useless.
      The young need to know when it should be exerted, and know when to submit. This is a very complex problem with young human beings and obviously the ability to use your own willpower is influenced by parental input, cultural, and social interactions and 'breeding' (your nurture and peer pressure etc). We could talk Jung, Freud, or even the alchemists (like Dee or Pinker!).
      But, I will rely on my own thoughts here, as they have served me well and I have seen them mirrored in other stable homes.
      It has been my experience as a parent, educator and trainer that those who have no real control over their will are subject to frequent shifts in what is commonly called 'personality'.
      Those who are subject to the will (ie people who think it MUST always be the source of inspiration and exerted) makes them very malleable and easily controlled. It can be 'broken' very easily in these cases, and reformed into a useful tool. This is common military practice for these types, for example, in the infantry units. Only those who can maintain the will in the face of this process will be chosen as officers. This second elect group know how to submit the will to external force WITHOUT it being shattered.
      The lack of will, as described above, you will hear concept referred to by many names and with many connotations, but the core idea is the same: There is centre or foundation for the young mind. No purpose or focus, and so they become susceptible to all sorts of peer influence, or control - like gangs or political movements, or for the lucky ones as front-line military or police.
      They become the tools or prey of VERY wilful leaders, criminal and political minds. This can be a controlled effort or simply the result of 'jungle' type law (as in the gangs).
      A more common and less obvious (and harmful) example may be an obsession with certain music, study, or literature.
      Proper parenting allows this to be largely avoided. It gives the young person a 'self' and a 'purpose(s)' to centre on. It allows them to change from one fashion to another, rebel, conform, educate themselves and relax - all as ONE growing (or evolving, if you like) insoluble personality.
      These skills can be learned as an adult, surely, but it is MUCH harder to train the adult mind and much time has been lost by that point.

      Delete
    8. CNTD

      During my years of training the cadets in the COTC (officer's corp) this was evident in almost ALL the successful candidates.
      Parenting, like officer training, of an intelligent young mind is not all about pressure or conforming. These are aspects, but not nearly the whole - Not by a long shot.
      Such an approach is more centrally about instilling a sense of purpose - the means to refine and focus the will - combined with ability to reason and think critically.
      This approach/combination allows the child to SELF educate and to form their own independent views, while retaining respect and understanding of the parent's or instructor's will and understanding.
      Any such attempt must be bracketed with discipline (real, not half hearted) and cultural values. The result is a consistent human being that is adaptable to the prevailing circumstance. The inevitable side effect is that they will have a strong moral core, and that is usually very reflective of the parent's.
      Children who do not get this kind of upbringing are subjects of their own (overly) wilful thinking, or suffer a sheer lack of free will.
      In my view much of the post-Spock (Dr that is!) 'modern' parenting technique results in this lack of control. 'Permissive' and 'passive' styles lead to this mess.
      My point regarding the demographics is simple when this observation is taken into account.
      Traditional families, whether they be Latin American Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Protestants, or any other major traditional system instil this focus and they BREED faster and more consistently than the families with a 'modern' approach. These very people are not only the resistant forces to such laws and policies as eugenics and abortion, but are the workforce the 'modern' folks NEED to import to counter the depopulating effects of their own beliefs.
      In the crudest and most simplistic way, it would be fair to say the 'modern' (antithetical) approach is literally killing it's young, while the traditional/natural (thetical) is increasing exponentially.
      The demographic and therefor democratic results are also inevitable: Abortion will be a much more controlled procedure in the future.
      The 'modern' thinkers will soon be outnumbered by an order of at least 3 or 4 to 1. This gap will only grow, no matter how much Hellenistic or Hegelian propaganda/thinking is applied.
      No amount of Big Macs or Ipads will change that enough to counter it completely. Hegel's middle road (synthesis) will inevitably shift to their thesis, as the core of these cultures are far more potent.
      There is but ONE way around this problem for the 'moderns'.
      They must become totalitarian and exert this issues by legal fiat. They must co-opt the 'liberal' AND 'conservative' movements into a Hegelian synthesis by duping them into thinking they are on the side of 'liberty' and 'freedom' by means of fear. This is why we have the various 'sky is falling' political movements.
      We see this in the increased 'security' measures against our own populaces justified by 'terror' and we see this in the various extreme 'green' movements justified by a warped 'sustainability' (ie population control) movement that in it's most extreme cases are analogous to a sterilized Aztec blood for corn theology.
      The big question is, in my mind, will they be successful? Maybe for a while.... but eventually such elitists will literally be outnumbered and out gunned.

      Delete
    9. CNTD II

      I know some of the readers will be tempted to say 'illuminati' or 'end times' theory is evident in what I say. I cannot speak to that.
      I do not know when that thief will come in the night
      and make no pretences on that concept.
      I am simply stating what I see and feel to be true. If that works to match biblical prophecy or conspiratorial theories, so be it. But I do not claim to be a Cassandra or party to any of these NWO theories. I just observe, learn, watch and adapt. My Christian beliefs do indeed influence my conclusions, but not to the point of certainty. In fact they INHIBIT such certainties and prevent me from the fear reaction that would be required to push me into one of those spheres.
      Hope that makes some sense to you, Bach; and to all the other readers who may stumble across this comment.

      Delete
    10. CrusadeRex,

      Stumble? It was hardly possible not to, it's so massive.

      Still anecdotes though. To be definitive, you need a large well controlled study.

      Like that recent silly one reporting a 12% reduction in mortality in OC user users.

      Which is ridiculous from the start, because by definition mortality in everyone is 100%, with no exceptions ...

      You don't like Steven Pinker. Fine. Your opinion. I personally think he's first rate. It's not his figures of 50:50 nature:nurture though. Although his book was criticized for being too nature, which it isn't.

      It's actually more of a liberal idea that human nature is environmental not genetic, because otherwise it wouldn't justify attempts to change society.

      Delete
    11. Bach,
      "To be definitive, you need a large well controlled study."
      There is no study capable of resulting in the data that projects a 50/50 mix of nature and nurture.
      The science and metaphysics for such a study are unavailable.
      All we have is our own experiences and the dramatic, book selling assumptions of academics. We are thus reduced to conjecture, and the only factor that truly matters is success.
      Healthy happy kids that result in productive stable adults is what I seek - not social engineering of any sort.
      Our end-goals (Pinker's and my own) are not the same, nor are our observations and conclusions.
      I prefer my own seasoned senses to Pinker's. I have seen repeated success with my own approach.

      Delete
  9. My wife and I recently had a child (4 months now) and my wife was offered amnio tests, but not required to have them.
    She declined. Why? We would not kill our offspring.
    I could not have been more proud of the way my wife responded to the doctor who made the offer. She said "No thank you. We don't believe in selective parenting. We will happily welcome our child whether it is a boy, a girl, or handicapped. It will be our child no matter what."
    The doctor, far from being insulted, was visibly relieved and said "It is increasingly rare that I get a response that indicates to me that I am speaking to a mother and family, and not someone looking for a 'perfect' child." She went on to explain that many people ASK for these tests in their 20's & 30's (not covered) they are afraid of having a kid that does not meet their 'design specifications'.
    Such people, she continued, should 'really get a dog' from a breeder.
    I interjected that I would feel sorry for the dog.
    These people and the 'laws' they used to get their settlement are a shame on parenthood.
    I hope the child never learns of the case, for HER sake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Arizona Senate overwhelmingly passed the “wrongful birth” bill, a bill that would allow doctors to withhold information on health problems of a fetus if the doctor believes the parents might opt for an abortion.

    In my opinion letting a doctor deciding to withhold information that would lead to a woman having a down’s syndrome baby against her will is far more egregious than a woman mistakenly told her baby is fine suing to compensate for the expensive error.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KW,
      if the doctor thinks the test results would inspire a woman to kill her child, is he not BOUND by his oath (to preservation of LIFE) to withhold those results?
      It seems to me that it is not a doctor's role to choose one life over another - especially if the life of one is not endangered by the other.
      If the doctor does so, he has broken his oath/trust and then ceases to be a real physician in every sense.
      The woman, can after all, choose to have her child go into care or be put up for adoption if she feels she is an unfit parent, no? There are plenty of people in this world who would welcome ANY child into their lives. Plenty of people who can and would care for a child with a disability.
      I know several personally.
      The reason all these laws concerning abortion (pro and counter) seem so paradoxical is that they confront a 'right to kill' - which is simply NOT a real or universal human right.

      Delete
    2. [In my opinion letting a doctor deciding to withhold information that would lead to a woman having a down’s syndrome baby against her will]

      It is not ethical for doctors to lie. I tell families the truth (I do a lot of prenatal counseling). I don't offer my moral opinion unless I am asked.

      That said, by far the most comon misrepresentation by doctors is that they paint too grim a picture for the life of handicapped children. I'm honest, and even with severely handicapped children, there are many joys.

      [is far more egregious than a woman mistakenly told her baby is fine suing to compensate for the expensive error.]

      A parent is not harmed by their child's life, so there is no cause for action in the lawsuit. A mistake was made, but no harm was done.

      A live child is not a harm, at least since 1945, when we put an end to Nazi policies.

      Delete
  11. Liberals are offended by the word retard. Fine. It's just the word that people used when I was growing up and learning the language. Nobody thought it was disparaging or malicious.

    I'll make a deal with you. I'll use whatever word you want as long as you stop killing them. To me, that's pretty offensive.

    Liberals: using the word retard is wrong. Killing them? still okay!

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on, Torch.

      Liberals are basically maniacal eugenicist killers, but they make sure they talk nicely about their victims so no one's feelings are hurt.

      Joey

      Delete
  12. Let's see now ...

    CrusadeRex,

    You and your wife are opposed to abortion under all circumstances. I can understand that attitude, and I think that you were completely rational in refusing amniocentesis when it was offered to you, because no matter what the result, it wasn't going to change your actions. Amniocentesis does have complications, including spontaneous abortions.

    Michael,

    You still don't get it. The couple had a legal antenatal screening test which by its nature should be 100% diagnostic and accurate. It wasn't, so they suffered injury and were entitled to damages, on a legal standpoint.

    The Torch,

    Was your reference to 'retard' in response to my comment about 'home for the mentally retarded'? My comment was about the 'home' not the 'mentally retarded'. Christians such as Michael insist that people with conditions such as trisomy 21 can live complete and satisfying lives. I actually agree; the aim should be to make them as independent as possible, include living in the community rather than in homes and having some employment, which should be meaningful.


    I'm a liberal, and proud of it. If people need support, then they should get it, and I think that the state is the best source for that, drawing on the resources of all its citizens more or less equally, rather than relying on charities or churches, with their unequal contributions from the community.

    Having a child is expensive. Having a child with trisomy 21 is even more expensive, and the expense is almost never ending (at least most children do eventually leave the parental home at some point).

    The T4 'euthanasia' program in Nazi Germany was partly due to the burgeoning of the numbers of inpatients in hospitals and homes for the handicapped. With the Great Depression, families weren't able to continue looking after handicapped members because of a lack of money so they had to give them up. They weren't able to reclaim them when conditions improved economically because for most people, they didn't. The workforce continued to be underpaid and often over worked (see Richard Evan's 'the Third Reich in Power').

    The Christian Right's objection to abortion was also shared by the Nazis. But they were keen to have sufficient population for cannon fodder and to populate the Lebensraum in the East after their wars of conquest.

    Mengele apparently had a nice little earner in the late '30s doing illegal abortions even before he went to Argentina after the war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @bach:

      [Michael,

      You still don't get it. The couple had a legal antenatal screening test which by its nature should be 100% diagnostic and accurate. It wasn't, so they suffered injury and were entitled to damages, on a legal standpoint.]

      In the US, four conditions must together be met for malpractice: physician-patient relationship, deviation from standard of care, injury, and causal relationship between the deviation from the standard of care and the injury.

      The case at issue fails to meet the "injury" standard, because a live child is not an "injury" to the parents. It doesn't matter how egregious the mistake was. If there is no injury, there is no basis for the suit.

      A live baby is not an injury, regardless of the parents' desire to not have given birth to the child. That a court would rule that it is is horrifying.

      (continued...)

      Delete
  13. [The Torch,

    (continued...)

    [Christians such as Michael insist that people with conditions such as trisomy 21 can live complete and satisfying lives. I actually agree; the aim should be to make them as independent as possible, include living in the community rather than in homes and having some employment, which should be meaningful.]

    How can you respect people who you deem unworthy of life before their birth?


    [I'm a liberal, and proud of it. If people need support, then they should get it, and I think that the state is the best source for that, drawing on the resources of all its citizens more or less equally, rather than relying on charities or churches, with their unequal contributions from the community.]

    They should get support, from the state if necessary, but the family and community are much better sources.

    [Having a child is expensive. Having a child with trisomy 21 is even more expensive, and the expense is almost never ending (at least most children do eventually leave the parental home at some point).]

    Trisomy 21 is not a particularly expensive disability, compared to many others.

    [The T4 'euthanasia' program in Nazi Germany was partly due to the burgeoning of the numbers of inpatients in hospitals and homes for the handicapped. With the Great Depression, families weren't able to continue looking after handicapped members because of a lack of money so they had to give them up. They weren't able to reclaim them when conditions improved economically because for most people, they didn't. The workforce continued to be underpaid and often over worked (see Richard Evan's 'the Third Reich in Power').]

    The T4 program owed much more to ideological and moral shifts than to economic factors. The world was engulfed in the Depression. Only Germany exterminated the handicapped.

    The moral shift began before the Nazis, and had three sources. One was the emerging view that human life was in many ways on a par with animal life, and without transcendent value (thanks, Charles D.). The second was the trend in medical ethics in Germany that predated the Nazis. In 1920 Binding and Hoche (two German physicians) published a book "Lebensunwertes Leben" ("Life Unworthy of Life") that made the case for eugenics. Many of their ideas originated with American and British eugenicists (Galton, Pearson, Sanger, Davenport, etc). The third was the Nazi incorporation of these trends into their governing ideology. In many ways T4 (which was carried out in the late 30's and ended in 1941 largely because of vehement public Catholic protest) was a dry run for the Holocaust, and was understood as such by some in the Nazi hierarchy.

    Economics didn't have a lot to do with it, Bach. The idea that there were some human beings who were not worthy of life did have a lot to do with it.

    [The Christian Right's objection to abortion was also shared by the Nazis. But they were keen to have sufficient population for cannon fodder and to populate the Lebensraum in the East after their wars of conquest.]

    You may have noticed that the Christian objection to abortion has a different basis than the Nazi objection.

    [Mengele apparently had a nice little earner in the late '30s doing illegal abortions even before he went to Argentina after the war.]

    The abortion business always seems to attract a certain kind of doctor...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael,

    Logic isn't one of your strong points, I know... But you continually distort what I write into something different. For example, I wrote that the T4 'euthanasia' was partly due to the burgeoning numbers of the handicapped in hospitals and homes, and you go and write that I'm claiming that it was solely for economic reasons.

    I noted that having a child is expensive, and that having a child with trisomy 21 is more expensive, which is true, and you react as if I'm claiming it's exorbitantly expensive.

    I note that the Oregon couple had a screening test that should be 100% reliable and accurate. It wasn't, so they suffered an injury and deserved damages. Just because they finished with a live child with trisomy 21 is immaterial. They went through the expense and bother of the amniocentesis to avoid such an event.

    If an obstetrician botches management of a pregnancy in such a way that it results in a live but damaged baby, would you, on the same criteria, insist that the parents don't have any recourse to damages?

    Abortion in America is legal. Doctors performing abortions in America are following the law and are law abiding. Mengele when he was performing illegal abortions in '30s Germany was breaking the law and was a criminal (although there were a lot of laws in Nazi Germany which morally should have been broken, although mostly they were obeyed, largely out of fear).

    If you think abortion should be illegal, then fine, campaign for it to be banned. That's your right in a democracy.

    I support the right of women to make decisions concerning their own bodies. I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      To give another scenario, suppose a doctor sees a patient early in pregnancy who presents with a febrile illness with a rash. Suppose the doctor takes a clinical history and discovers that the patient had German measles as a child or had rubella immunisation, and concludes that it couldn't possibly be rubella.

      Or suppose the doctor reasons that the clinical diagnosis of rubella is difficult and that immunisation occasionally doesn't 'take' and orders rubella serology, notes that it's positive, and concludes that the patient is immune, but fails to note that IgM not IgG rubella antibodies were present, indicating a recent infection.

      Suppose that subsequently a child is born with one or more features of the rubella syndrome, including deafness. Was there an injury? According to your criteria - no. The mother has a live baby, and doesn't deserve damages.

      Of course, the mother deserves an accurate reliable diagnosis and good quality information. Rubella early in pregnancy might or might not lead to effects in the child. It's unpredictable. But the parents do deserve to get accurate information so that they can make a decision for themselves regarding abortion.

      They have the right to make the decision whether abortion is wanted or not, not you or anyone else.

      Delete