NationStates Jolt Archive

Events from 2004. Woman tries to have an abortion done on April 9th, she claims it was botched. Women has medical checkup in July, claims different doctor doesn't notice that she's pregnant, even though she must be 20 weeks pregnant at that time according to her account. Woman sees different doctor in September for stomach pains and finds out she's pregnant, gives birth on December 7th...


Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_re_us/abortion_lawsuit)

Was the baby a preemie and it's a different baby? Perhaps. Is it a the same baby that was 'aborted' in April 9th and wasn't removed? Was a doctor not checking for pregnancy responsible for discovering it in July? Is this woman going to make a good Mom for this little 2 year old girl or is she a half-baked nutjob and the little girl should be put in foster care. Should the little girl get financial support from the malpractice suit?

My answer, evaluate the pregnancy to first prove if it the same baby, if so, then evaluate the Mom and ensure that she is a fit parent, or not, perhaps remind her she has options to not have to raise the child herself is her heart isn't into it. Wherever the child goes, the little girl should get a big enough settlement from the Doctors to pay for her college tuition for a couple of years…

The doctors are not the child's parents.

These kind of lawsuits help to continually drive up medical costs in the US, thus not only making it more expensive for americans to seek treatment, but also attracting doctors overseas, tempted by a high salary, thus causing a lack of doctors in other countries, due to an overinflated salary.

The doctors are not the child's parents.

These kind of lawsuits help to continually drive up medical costs in the US, thus not only making it more expensive for americans to seek treatment, but also attracting doctors overseas, tempted by a high salary, thus causing a lack of doctors in other countries, due to an overinflated salary.

*blink ... blink ... blink*

So, let's see if I'm getting this right, you're saying that frivolous malpractice lawsuits in Boston cause a shortage of Doctors in, say, Sudan?


Interesting... ;)

I don't think that sentence came out quite like he intended.

What a screwed up situation.

I have to go, but I'll think about it and give my opinion later.

Okay, this was in the linked article: "The state's high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said."

The only "medical problem" here, as I see it, is that the child exists. While I hate encouraging yet another stupid lawsuit, it would be interesting to see if the courts consider that an extraordinary circumstance.

I'm not a trained medical person, nor have I studied medicine, but can one honestly botch an abortion so badly that one leaves the patient still pregnant and capable of bringing a healthy child to term? I mean, anything's possible but from what I understand, early-term abortions are pretty simple.

Er... the lawyers get the money. The lawyers ALWAYS get the money.

*blink ... blink ... blink*

So, let's see if I'm getting this right, you're saying that frivolous malpractice lawsuits in Boston cause a shortage of Doctors in, say, Sudan?


Interesting... ;)

Okay okay :p I was going a bit overboard there.

But, that was only because, it is true that:
1) Frivilous lawsuits (and true lawsuits) drive up medical costs, as doctors must now either pay more in insurance or they have to have enough money in case they're sued. Frivilous lawsuits are really bad, because not only do they have that negative effect, but there's absolutely no reason for them! Real lawsuits should still be carried out, obviously, which makes it difficult to judge when the lines blur

By some weird connection:
2) Therefore, since medical costs rise, the good doctors who think that "I'll never get sued" (oh how wrong you are!) and who are interested in a lot of money should naturally go there. They get paid more per service rendered.

nr1 I am sure of. nr2 I just made up on the spot.

But, isn't it worth thinking about?

Er... the lawyers get the money. The lawyers ALWAYS get the money.

Too true, too true :)

ok ive thought about it and she should not prevail.

keeping the baby indicates that she wants the baby. if not having a baby was so important, she could have put it up for adoption after it was born. in the absense of defects that could have been caused by the botched abortion, she should have no right to child suppport. that is her and the babydaddy's responsibility.

I should get the money

ok ive thought about it and she should not prevail.

keeping the baby indicates that she wants the baby. if not having a baby was so important, she could have put it up for adoption after it was born. in the absense of defects that could have been caused by the botched abortion, she should have no right to child suppport. that is her and the babydaddy's responsibility.

I agree to some extend. However, I still think that the doctor who screwed up the abortion should face a malpractice suit.

I'd be surprised if this actually holds up.

I understand filing a suit against planned parenthood for the procedure not being done properly..but I don't understand why she thinks she can sue the second doctor for failing to notice she was pregnant. Why would he notice that? Unless he was specifically looking for it.

And the fact that she is suing two years after the baby was born...

If she really did not want the baby and could not afford raising her, she would have given her up for adoption.

Unless the woman can prove that the Doctor purposefully sabotaged the abortion, she doesn't have a right to anything. People have to accept that medical science is fallible and even routine operations can go wrong from time to time.
I'd also like to know how she managed to not notice being pregnant. While I've never endured such a state myself, I have numerous assurances that it isn't something one can simply fail to recognize or pass off as a bit of weight gain and severe gas.

I'm not a trained medical person, nor have I studied medicine, but can one honestly botch an abortion so badly that one leaves the patient still pregnant and capable of bringing a healthy child to term? I mean, anything's possible but from what I understand, early-term abortions are pretty simple.
Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no.

I should get the money

I think the money should be given to NSG, so as to permit us to move away from Jolt.

Unless the woman can prove that the Doctor purposefully sabotaged the abortion, she doesn't have a right to anything. People have to accept that medical science is fallible and even routine operations can go wrong from time to time.
I'd also like to know how she managed to not notice being pregnant. While I've never endured such a state myself, I have numerous assurances that it isn't something one can simply fail to recognize or pass off as a bit of weight gain and severe gas.

Oh, this is possible - not all women get a baby-belly. And if they weren't pregnant before, they don't necessarly know the symptons.

Oh, this is possible - not all women get a baby-belly. And if they weren't pregnant before, they don't necessarly know the symptons.


Especially if they think that they have already aborted the baby.

Here's what I think after giving it a bit of time:

If it can be shown with good certainty that the doctor did indeed botch the abortion - that something was done wrong - then the woman is definitely entitled to a malpractice lawsuit and will get the settlement that a jury awards her (or none at all, if they think her claim is frivolous).

I don't think she is entitled to anything whatsoever from the second doctor. This was a doctor who had no reason to believe she was pregnant and was probably told while taking a history that she had recently had an abortion. If the woman didn't know she was pregnant (a story I always highly doubt, although it is possible), how was the doctor supposed to magically notice?

She is not entitled to child support from anyone but the baby's father. If she cannot take care of the child, then a responsible mother should either look for programs that might be able to help support the child or give the child up for adoption, so that someone can do so.

In fact, if she truly did not want this child and cannot support the child, she should have started adoption proceedings much, much, much earlier to increase the chances of an adoption occurring.

I agree to some extend. However, I still think that the doctor who screwed up the abortion should face a malpractice suit.

He'd probably get a fucking medal for failing.
Then blown up for trying.

The mother should not get a penny, if anyone gets anything it should be the child. This is also proof enough that she doesn't want the kid so it should be taken away and put into care.

Personally I think it's a ridiculous claim but in my very limited knowledge of law it seems to be regular occurence in America for people to take each other to court over ridiculous claims. We get by without all this nonsense in Jolly Olde England and let the National Health Service do it's job. Her complaint is that the health system is not good enough, by taking it's money she's making it even worse, pure genius.

I think we should all be allowed to take people to court for stupidity, this woman would be bankrupt if this happened though.:rolleyes:

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/rewrites/4_abortion.png
lol

Woman sues doctors for child support after failed abortionjust by reading the title.. I can tell the country.

99.99% accuracy

*blink ... blink ... blink*

So, let's see if I'm getting this right, you're saying that frivolous malpractice lawsuits in Boston cause a shortage of Doctors in, say, Sudan?


Interesting... ;)

What's so hard to understand. It discourages people from becoming doctors which is bad, and encourages people to become doctors which is also bad.