America, land of the....sued

[DinoDoc]

The last part of Pyrodrew's post seemed to be the most importrant to disposing of the idiotic wrongful life suits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That they could have given the baby away via adoption? That's a decent argument to bad abortion too, you know?

Or do you mean a few months of compensation rather than 18 months? You are really going to put the burden on the person, who would have gotten an abortion if the kid was retarded? Why shouldn't she get the difference between raising an average child and one who is mentally retarded?

Think of it this way: You go to the doctor because you feel pain in your back. The doctor tells you it is nothing, and just put a heating pad on it. A year later it hurts so bad and you go to another doctor, who tells you that you have a tumor, and a year ago they could have removed it easily, but NOW you'll have to go to chemo and pay tons. Wouldn't it be right for you to sue the first doctor for malpractice?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Think of it this way: You go to the doctor because you feel pain in your back. The doctor tells you it is nothing, and just put a heating pad on it. A year later it hurts so bad and you go to another doctor, who tells you that you have a tumor, and a year ago they could have removed it easily, but NOW you'll have to go to chemo and pay tons. Wouldn't it be right for you to sue the first doctor for malpractice?

Interesting that you bring up that example. The exact same thing happened to me 5 years ago(but I didn't need chemo cuz it wasn't malin) and I didn't sue no one, I dont beleive in that. I could have, but I'm sure that if the doc would've saw something in the X-ray, he would've told me. You know it's not always easy to detect something without having an MRI. X rays can OR cannot detect abnormalities when it comes to bones because it's to "fuzzy". And the only reason why they found it a year later is because the tumor got bigger. It was easier to see with an X-ray. I dont consider it to be the doctors fault.
Besides, now I'm in perfect shape, why destroy somebody elses life because I got a tumor. I sure he did what he could.

Spec.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's fine that you didn't sue the other doctor, but I think that option should at least be open. I know I'd sue. The increased cost of chemo is something I simply cannot afford easily.

If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money? What I tend to see in these debates is people sticking up for doctors. What they don't realize is how HORRIBLE plenty of doctors are: from leaving scalpels in people, to taking a tumor and using the cells for research to make a lot of money without telling the person that the tumor came from, to simply misdiagnosing a problem leading to death because the person was given something he should not have been.

Another example if my g/f. Her gyn in Jersey just did normal gyn stuff and said there was nothing wrong with her. In just her FIRST visit to a gyn down here in Georgia, it was found she has PCOS (Polycystian Ovarian Syndrome) and put her on different pills. This should have been detected YEARS ago, and would have substantially reduced the risk of her getting diabetes. It didn't really cause much damage (she doesn't have diabetes or anything), so she didn't sue, but it could have! If it did cause damage, the gyn definetly should have been liable.

[Pyrodrew]

The average girl doesn't not cost significantly more than the average boy (if more at all).

I was proposing a hypothetical question, nevertheless, I'll drop it to move on.

People don't abort children for being the wrong gender.

Right, they only do that in other countries....

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money?

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

Do you not pay for 18+ years of a child? Why shouldn't the doctor have to pay the difference between the costs of a mentally retarded children subtracting the costs of a normal child? These are costs that were unanticipated because the doctor said the child was going to be alright. If the child was not ok, the child would have been aborted. The parents expected a normal child, based on what the doctor said.

It must be at least 15 years of compensation.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Again, that seems like a few months of compensation at best (when the doctor told her to birth), not 18+years.

Do you not pay for 18+ years of a child? Why shouldn't the doctor have to pay the difference between the costs of a mentally retarded children subtracting the costs of a normal child? These are costs that were unanticipated because the doctor said the child was going to be alright. If the child was not ok, the child would have been aborted. The parents expected a normal child, based on what the doctor said.

Because she was NOT required to raise/keep that child after birth. She could have given it away upon birth via adoption.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because she was NOT required to raise/keep that child after birth. She could have given it away upon birth via adoption.

Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child. They take constant supervision, and adoption clinics don't have the time to devote to that.

Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

The question comes down to who will forced to pay for an error. The person MAKING the error, or the victim of the error. You are articulating the position that victim of the error should have to pay for it, even if she had nothing to do with that error.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[
Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

[Pyrodrew]

Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child.

Few (if any) adoption organizations reject children because they are deformed/retarded. After she accepts the responsibility to raise the child (be they perfect, 6toes, blind, or whatever) she has accepted the future costs as well. As for if that would make the adoption organization the victim, some of those adoption organizations would claim the baby is a "gift from God" & would be "thanking God" the baby was not aborted... hardly calling themselves victims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

Um... genetic information doesn't depend on the age of child. What, did you think the doctor tells the parents if the kids are mentally retarded by looking at the ultrasound?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ok then, how should the doctor have known in that case?

Um... genetic information doesn't depend on the age of child. What, did you think the doctor tells the parents if the kids are mentally retarded by looking at the ultrasound?

Thay was 20 years ago, you sure it was as easy as it is today? And anyway, they dont make that test if the mother is less than 40 years old and if everything seems normal, weight, size, etc....I know, I have a kid and they never made that test.


Spec.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's fine that you didn't sue the other doctor, but I think that option should at least be open. I know I'd sue. The increased cost of chemo is something I simply cannot afford easily.

If a doctor commits negligence and it costs you a good amount of money, why shouldn't the doctor pay that money?

If you had a public health care system, that wouldn't be an issue. And no I'm not making a judgemant call, just stating a fact.

Another example if my g/f. Her gyn in Jersey just did normal gyn stuff and said there was nothing wrong with her. In just her FIRST visit to a gyn down here in Georgia, it was found she has PCOS (Polycystian Ovarian Syndrome) and put her on different pills. This should have been detected YEARS ago, and would have substantially reduced the risk of her getting diabetes.

I don't know anything about the condition, but a few things to consider:

- How rare is it? There's a lot of diseases out there, and all doctors can't be expected to be up on every single one of them. That's why we have specialists.
- How difficult is it to detect or be confused with another condition? Or overlooked altogether because the diagnostic tools available aren't completely reliable?
- Have there been fairly recent developments in the ability to detect it that may not yet be common knowledge within the medical profession?

Certainly there are incompetent doctors, but they are still working within certain limitations, both human and technological. You can't just automatically expect them to be infallible.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do you realize how difficult it is for a mentally retarded child to be adopted? I'm not sure many would take such a child. They take constant supervision, and adoption clinics don't have the time to devote to that.

The thing is, she accepted the responsibilty of raising the child right from the beginning, and that includes ensuring that it was going to be provided for when she passed away. Or do you think that she suddenly woke up one morning twenty years later and thought, "Well I better start doing something about it." Why should the doctor suddenly, after all those years, be held responsible? She knew what she was getting into from early on.

Furthermore, what if the child shows the signs of retardation at one year old? AFAIK, you can't give up a child for adoption when they are a certain age.

There will always be some agency somewhere that will accept a child, normal or otherwise. Age is irrelevant.

[Spiffor]

Imran :
If I understand correctly what you say, a doctor should be sued for having made a mistake. Is every medical mistake equivalent to a negligence in your understanding ?