| Author |
Topic:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound [Locked] |
Sezyrrith  Posts: 257
Registered: 2003-7-13 05:04:05
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
Fist_de_Yuma posted:
Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.
OK, let's use logic here.
"Senate approves bill on 'wrongful births'" is the original article's headline. Google up "wrongful birth lawsuit" for yourself - it means a child was born with a serious disability that either was known, or should have been known (had the doctor/specialist involved read sonograms correctly etc.). Keep in mind these are civil suits, not criminal, so the award is monetary and usually goes to help pay for lifelong disability costs and so on. For example, being born without functioning legs requires things such as wheelchairs, special lifts attached to vehicles such as vans, and these all cost quite a lot of money that the family possibly cannot afford. Being told about these things is your right as a parent; you are a patient, your baby is a patient and as the parent of the baby you deserve to be told all of the information that has been gathered. As a doctor, he/she has an ethical responsibility to attempt to gather as much of this information as is humanly possible and deliver it to you.
Somewhere along that line, the doctor is failing. This costs the parents tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. That's what these lawsuits are about. Those lawsuits are what this bill is about; the senator sponsoring it is quoted directly as saying so.
In summary; 'wrongful birth' is defined as the doctor failing to provide required medical information. This law prevents the doctor from having to reveal this information to prevent a lawsuit, which is seemingly the only recourse in such a situation. So, as a result, the doctor no longer has to provide medical information about an unborn baby and cannot be sued for doing so.
It's not about suing over birth defects, it's about not being told about them before the child is born. Think about it - you couldn't really sue a doctor for a child being born with birth defects if he already TOLD you it was going to happen. His or her responsibility ended when he or she told you.
-----signature-----
E- 80% K- 60% S- 40% A- 20%
"That thing you burnt up isn't important to me. It's the fluid catalytic cracking unit. It made shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
http://tinyurl.com/Sezy-1
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
Sezyrrith posted:
Fist_de_Yuma posted:
Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.
OK, let's use logic here.
"Senate approves bill on 'wrongful births'" is the original article's headline. Google up "wrongful birth lawsuit" for yourself - it means a child was born with a serious disability that either was known, or should have been known (had the doctor/specialist involved read sonograms correctly etc.). Keep in mind these are civil suits, not criminal, so the award is monetary and usually goes to help pay for lifelong disability costs and so on. For example, being born without functioning legs requires things such as wheelchairs, special lifts attached to vehicles such as vans, and these all cost quite a lot of money that the family possibly cannot afford. Being told about these things is your right as a parent; you are a patient, your baby is a patient and as the parent of the baby you deserve to be told all of the information that has been gathered. As a doctor, he/she has an ethical responsibility to attempt to gather as much of this information as is humanly possible and deliver it to you.
Somewhere along that line, the doctor is failing. This costs the parents tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. That's what these lawsuits are about. Those lawsuits are what this bill is about; the senator sponsoring it is quoted directly as saying so.
In summary; 'wrongful birth' is defined as the doctor failing to provide required medical information. This law prevents the doctor from having to reveal this information to prevent a lawsuit, which is seemingly the only recourse in such a situation. So, as a result, the doctor no longer has to provide medical information about an unborn baby and cannot be sued for doing so.
It's not about suing over birth defects, it's about not being told about them before the child is born. Think about it - you couldn't really sue a doctor for a child being born with birth defects if he already TOLD you it was going to happen. His or her responsibility ended when he or she told you.
you just contradicted yourself
or you jsut really dont understand what is goin on around you
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine
the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
Sezyrrith Posts: 257
Registered: 2003-7-13 05:04:05
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
sweeny_comodore posted:
Sezyrrith posted:
Fist_de_Yuma posted:
Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.
OK, let's use logic here.
"Senate approves bill on 'wrongful births'" is the original article's headline. Google up "wrongful birth lawsuit" for yourself - it means a child was born with a serious disability that either was known, or should have been known (had the doctor/specialist involved read sonograms correctly etc.). Keep in mind these are civil suits, not criminal, so the award is monetary and usually goes to help pay for lifelong disability costs and so on. For example, being born without functioning legs requires things such as wheelchairs, special lifts attached to vehicles such as vans, and these all cost quite a lot of money that the family possibly cannot afford. Being told about these things is your right as a parent; you are a patient, your baby is a patient and as the parent of the baby you deserve to be told all of the information that has been gathered. As a doctor, he/she has an ethical responsibility to attempt to gather as much of this information as is humanly possible and deliver it to you.
Somewhere along that line, the doctor is failing. This costs the parents tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. That's what these lawsuits are about. Those lawsuits are what this bill is about; the senator sponsoring it is quoted directly as saying so.
In summary; 'wrongful birth' is defined as the doctor failing to provide required medical information. This law prevents the doctor from having to reveal this information to prevent a lawsuit, which is seemingly the only recourse in such a situation. So, as a result, the doctor no longer has to provide medical information about an unborn baby and cannot be sued for doing so.
It's not about suing over birth defects, it's about not being told about them before the child is born. Think about it - you couldn't really sue a doctor for a child being born with birth defects if he already TOLD you it was going to happen. His or her responsibility ended when he or she told you.
you just contradicted yourself
or you jsut really dont understand what is goin on around you
In what way is that a contradiction? I'm assuming you're referring to the lines that are bolded. The first is where the new Arizona law would put things. That's the point of the law; 'wrongful birth' lawsuits, defined in the second sentence of the first paragraph, are prevented. The second is what the uproar is about, the fact that the doctor no longer has to inform you of birth defects, and there are no penalties for holding this information back. That's why people are getting mad about it, it has nothing to do with 'liberals being mad about babies born with birth defects' or whatever crap was spewed a few posts up.
[Edit:]Fixed placement of my post vs. the quote. Was inside last quote bracket originally.
-----signature-----
E- 80% K- 60% S- 40% A- 20%
"That thing you burnt up isn't important to me. It's the fluid catalytic cracking unit. It made shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
http://tinyurl.com/Sezy-1
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
yeah, read harder.
im sure i just bolded the wrong phrases.
i get sloppy as i drink more so keep reading to find your fukk up.
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine
the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus |
Moe_Nox  Title: In Moe We Trust
Posts: 1,962
Registered: 2007-2-4 12:17:56
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
People in favor of government mandatory healthcare coverage for all people, and then whining when the government enacts a benign mandatory examination, are loltarded.
-----signature-----
The Nanny State cometh
Currency should be bacon cheeseburgers and blow jobs... - Reese
Life at the Outpost: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556 |
Tych2 Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts: 2,511
Registered: 2005-3-1 06:56:47
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
 Sweeny. You did bold the wrong parts because they didn't contradict.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
Sezyrrith Posts: 257
Registered: 2003-7-13 05:04:05
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
sweeny_comodore posted:
yeah, read harder.
im sure i just bolded the wrong phrases.
i get sloppy as i drink more so keep reading to find your fukk up.
Anyone who likes can feel free to point out my contradiction. I'm not seeing it - then again, I see more of what I intended to write than a third party reader will.
-----signature-----
E- 80% K- 60% S- 40% A- 20%
"That thing you burnt up isn't important to me. It's the fluid catalytic cracking unit. It made shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
http://tinyurl.com/Sezy-1
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
Sezyrrith posted:
sweeny_comodore posted:
yeah, read harder.
im sure i just bolded the wrong phrases.
i get sloppy as i drink more so keep reading to find your fukk up.
Anyone who likes can feel free to point out my contradiction. I'm not seeing it - then again, I see more of what I intended to write than a third party reader will.
thats because youre retarded
go read it again.
this time read it backwards and im sure youll find your mistake
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine
the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
Sezyrrith Posts: 257
Registered: 2003-7-13 05:04:05
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
sweeny_comodore posted:
Sezyrrith posted:
Anyone who likes can feel free to point out my contradiction. I'm not seeing it - then again, I see more of what I intended to write than a third party reader will.
thats because youre retarded
go read it again.
this time read it backwards and im sure youll find your mistake
I repeat - feel free to point it out. I don't see it, and I'm not going to spend any real time looking for it. You wanna make a claim, back it up.
-----signature-----
E- 80% K- 60% S- 40% A- 20%
"That thing you burnt up isn't important to me. It's the fluid catalytic cracking unit. It made shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
http://tinyurl.com/Sezy-1
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
So, Forcing Pregnant Women To Get An Ultrasound |
you dont see it because youre retarded.
im not going to waste my valuable time pointing out your inadequacies.
sorry, but i have beer to drink.
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine
the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus |
|
