Re: Oklahoma doctors can lie about birth defects if an abortion might occur

**Kerostasis** · 05-02-2010, 07:40 PM

What doesn't make sense about that second one? It looks perfectly reasonable to me, more so than the first.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-03-2010, 12:56 AM

I think, at it's core, this new law gives doctors the legal ability to substitute their medical training with personal beliefs. At least in a small way.

How can this be good? Soon, maybe, doctors can prescribe wearing crystals or praying to Thor to cure what ails us.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-03-2010, 01:20 AM

Theres a big gaping loophole. You can still punish the doctor, big time. If a doctor lies about specific knowledge regarding birth defects simply because there is a law stating that they can, its an ethics violation. A BIG ethics violation that can be reported to the state medical board. I've seen doctors get harshly punished for far less, things along the lines of failing to tell patients that anesthesia before surgery can have lingering side effects or failing to disclose aspects of a condition. The big difference is that the medical board isnt a bunch of politicians who are concerned with agenda and voters. They tend to swing the hammer pretty hard.

Of course there will be incidents, but "first do no harm" hasnt lost its meaning just yet. Doctors have a duty to inform you of medical conditions that could impact all the parties involved. At 28 weeks, the fetus officially becomes a patient and failing to disclose defects to the guardian (that being the mother, obviously) is definitely doing harm, and its an oath violation. We're talking about one in 8 pregnancies being high risk or defective, leading to serious health risks for the mother as well as the fetus. The medical ethics board is going to have a field day with any doctor who acts on this law and not on their oath.

If this really goes into effect, the state of oklahoma is going to be up to its eyeballs in medical malpractice suits (not just wrongful birth and wrongful life, but medical negligence as well), as well as suits against the state regarding the law. Sure, the state may not have to pay out any cash awards to the families that eat them alive in court, but the legal fees alone are going to be through the roof. I'd expect to see a class action lawsuit in the next 5 years with the number of plaintiffs numbering in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

**CallousDisregard** · 05-03-2010, 05:16 AM

There is more to the story....http://www.newsok.com/article/345738...m_click=search
There is a related bill forcing doctors to show the ultrasound to the mother
House Bill 2780

• Requires women seeking an abortion to be shown an ultrasound at least an hour before undergoing the procedure.

• The health care provider must describe fetal development, including the heart beat and development of organs or limbs. The woman can avert her eyes, but health care providers are required to give an explanation.

• Women seeking an abortion because of a medical emergency are not required to view an ultrasound image. A written certificate detailing the medical emergency will stay in a patient’s file for up to seven years.

• A doctor who does not comply with the ultrasound requirement can be sued by the woman seeking an abortion; the patient’s spouse, parent, sibling or guardian; or another health care provider.

• The district attorney or attorney general also can bring legal action to stop the provider from doing abortions.

• A physician who violates the injunction could be fined up to $100,000.

Read more: http://www.newsok.com/article/345738...#ixzz0mqtkW9Q4

Finally, something that at least looks like due process.

**snooggums** · 05-03-2010, 12:52 PM

That law is terrible too, all it does is torture the mother by forcing an emotional response for a legal medical procedure.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-03-2010, 12:57 PM

Indeed, gotta love the fact that the state feels it has the right to dictate what principles doctors should act on. $100k fine if the doctor decides not to prescribe to some super-pro-life crap that got pushed through the state legislature? Yeah, that makes sense. Remind me never to move to such a backward ass state. Colorado may not be perfect, but at least we dont have the state telling doctors they're going to be punished if they dont adhere to some ultra-conservative horsepoo that is already punishing patients.

**BigGaayAl** · 05-03-2010, 02:53 PM

I'm shocked by reading all this, but glad to hear from Ferris on ethics violations and the medical board. My first thought was 'omg hippocratical oath fail', but one could still argue that the oath is being followed with the unborn child in mind. Lying to your patient is probably also a failing the oath I presume, from what Ferris posted.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 05-03-2010, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Remind me never to move to such a backward ass state.

At least we love the baby Jesus you heathen!

**Kerostasis** · 05-03-2010, 04:13 PM

No comment on the ultrasound bill.

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Theres a big gaping loophole. You can still punish the doctor, big time. If a doctor lies about specific knowledge regarding birth defects simply because there is a law stating that they can, its an ethics violation. A BIG ethics violation that can be reported to the state medical board. I've seen doctors get harshly punished for far less, things along the lines of failing to tell patients that anesthesia before surgery can have lingering side effects or failing to disclose aspects of a condition. The big difference is that the medical board isnt a bunch of politicians who are concerned with agenda and voters. They tend to swing the hammer pretty hard.

I agree with you here, except...I wouldn't characterize that as a "loophole". I would call it evidence that the problem isn't nearly as bad as all the complainers seem to think. There are many safeguards in the medical process, and this law changes exactly one of them. All the others are left un-touched.

If this really goes into effect, the state of oklahoma is going to be up to its eyeballs in medical malpractice suits (not just wrongful birth and wrongful life, but medical negligence as well), as well as suits against the state regarding the law. Sure, the state may not have to pay out any cash awards to the families that eat them alive in court, but the legal fees alone are going to be through the roof. I'd expect to see a class action lawsuit in the next 5 years with the number of plaintiffs numbering in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

I don't follow this part at all. What kind of lawsuits are you expecting? Are you expecting hundreds of doctors to suddenly ignore the requirements of their medical boards and start lying to their patients on a regular basis?

The only thing this law does is to disallow one particular kind of lawsuit. How is that going to spawn thousands of new lawsuits? (I'm sure there will be at least one lawsuit alleging unconstitutionality, but that's not quite the same as what you're predicting).

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-03-2010, 04:30 PM

Actually, according to the way the law is written, it doesnt disallow the suits themselves (that being wrongful birth and wrongful life suits), but only inhibits monetary reward to be paid to the plaintiff if they win.

But to answer the question, yes, I do expect lots of doctors to put the ethics secondary. When you oppose ethics (which has intangible and undefined repercussions in violation) against law (which has very tangible and defined consequences), people are going to side with the law. Take the second law for example: a doctor may feel that it is unethical to force a patient to see the ultrasound (and they may be right if it would cause the patient mental distress, thus violating the oath by directly causing harm), but the law defines the consequences if he doesnt. So yes, given the fact that more doctors are going to fear high fines or criminal legal action if they go against the law than the possibility of being sued and punished by the ethics board if they dont (and being monetarily protected from those suits by the law), I'm sure we're going to see a lot of this.

**seg[TDev]** · 05-04-2010, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Helen Keller didn't die five days out of the womb from a terminal, uncurable illness. Since you are using a child who had their disability after birth due to an unrelated illness, your example is completely irrelevant. Helen Keller would have been born today, but due to vaccines she wouldn't have contracted the illness that struck her deaf and blind. Good example for the vaccine thread though!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

Not sure what vaccine prevents an acute congestion of the stomach and the brain? The point I was trying to make was what if the physician is wrong in his assessment. My nephew was suppose to be born with a developmental defect (mentally retarded). The physician made his diagnosis through an amniocentesis and had an in depth discussion with my sister in law and her husband about whether or not to continue the pregnancy. They decided to carry the baby full term. Suffice it to say it was a false positive and my nephew was born healthy. The life and story of Helen Keller if you are familiar with it, is amazing and we learned a lot about how to communicate and teach those children who are deaf and or blind because of her. As far as I see it going deaf and blind at 9 months is not much different than being born deaf and blind. The relevance is what if a doctor diagnosed a patient as being mentally retard with the potential to do what Helen Keller accomplished in life but the mother decided on an abortion.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-04-2010, 08:04 PM

Ok, but think of the converse situation. Imagine a child diagnosed in utero with tay sachs. You know what the high end life expectancy for a child with the disease is? Six. Six years old. Not only that, but the symptoms cause the child to be in excruciating pain for almost their whole, short life. In addition, treatment for the disease requires specialized care and is very expensive. So what possible justification could a doctor have for causing the child excess harm in ill-preparing the parents to cope with the disease? Its just irresponsible and unethical.

**Kerostasis** · 05-04-2010, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Ok, but think of the converse situation. Imagine a child diagnosed in utero with tay sachs. You know what the high end life expectancy for a child with the disease is? Six. Six years old. Not only that, but the symptoms cause the child to be in excruciating pain for almost their whole, short life. In addition, treatment for the disease requires specialized care and is very expensive. So what possible justification could a doctor have for causing the child excess harm in ill-preparing the parents to cope with the disease? Its just irresponsible and unethical.

Note that failing to allow the proper preparations for a chronic disease like that is not on the list of barred lawsuits, so this law wouldn't necessarily change anything there. And it doesn't change anything at all in regards to allegations of unethical-ness. That's handled by a completely separate agency.

This is probably a good time to get back to your previous post:

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Actually, according to the way the law is written, it doesnt disallow the suits themselves (that being wrongful birth and wrongful life suits), but only inhibits monetary reward to be paid to the plaintiff if they win.

Technicality. I'm not really sure why you care about the difference between those? Perhaps I'm missing some important side effect here.

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

But to answer the question, yes, I do expect lots of doctors to put the ethics secondary. When you oppose ethics (which has intangible and undefined repercussions in violation) against law (which has very tangible and defined consequences), people are going to side with the law. Take the second law for example:

The second law does indeed serve as a good example. The problem is, the first law does not serve as a good example at all -- and I'm trying to defend the first law, not the second. I will be happy to defer to your judgment on the ultrasound law, but that does not mean the wrongful birth law is equally bad.

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

[Remainder of post applies only to ultrasound law, and so is omitted]

**ScratchMonkey** · 05-04-2010, 08:51 PM

Any sperm or egg could be a great person, so Onanism and failing to get pregnant every month possible means those wonderful people aren't being born.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-04-2010, 10:44 PM

Not to mention the tens of thousands of sperm that dont make the cut every time a pregnancy occurs!

@kero I'll get back to your post later on, I need a nap first. 24 hours on the clock leaves one very tired ferris.

Thread Tools

Display