Arizona law seeks to allow Doctors to lie to patients about birth defects.

[Ice_Tyrant]

Arizona senate wants to make it okay for doctors to lie to patients about birth defects to prevent abortions.

The Arizona Senate passed a bill Tuesday that will prohibit medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors who withhold information from a woman that could cause her to have an abortion.

"Sen. Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) told the Claims Journal that she sponsored the law because she did not want claimants to blame a doctor for a baby born with disabilities. Under the provisions of her bill, a doctor could not be sued for medical malpractice if the doctor withholds information from a mother about a child's potential health issues that could influence her decision to have an abortion. In addition, a lawsuit could not be filed on the child's behalf regarding a disability.

"I cannot think of a time that it is right to withhold information from a patient that would cause them pain or death," Heinz told HuffPost. "That is not consistent with the Hippocratic Oath."

9 states already have laws like this. I guess the question I am asking is that, is this really alright? I can't believe this could actually become a law. On another article I was reading about this the author was talking about how his wife had an abortion after they realized the baby had no chance at all of surviving after birth due to some sort of birth defect. I don't really think doctors should be putting women and their possible children in danger due to their personally beliefs.

 

[Cutlass]

So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[Narz]

Can we make Arizona it's own country? While we're at it can we let the South secede after all?

 

[FriendlyFire]

I say YES it would be a very good idea for Arizona

 

[Arwon]

Ah yes, the "allow doctors to let women die" law. Noble stuff.

 

[kramerfan86]

Doctors shouldnt be allowed to lie.

 

[DaveShack]

Link to the actual bill information.

<the bill>
Specifies these provisions do not apply to civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including one that violates criminal law.

If the doctor does not mention risks of birth defects, and the woman does not ask, then the doctor would not be liable. But if the woman asks what risks there are, and the doctor intentionally omits the risks, then the bill's provisions do not protect the doctor from liability.

So despite the political aspects of the bill, in a legal sense it doesn't really provide what the politicians say it does.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still, you'd want your doctor to tell you if he knew something's wrong even though you're not asking.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Link to the actual bill information.


If the doctor does not mention risks of birth defects, and the woman does not ask, then the doctor would not be liable. But if the woman asks what risks there are, and the doctor intentionally omits the risks, then the bill's provisions do not protect the doctor from liability.

So despite the political aspects of the bill, in a legal sense it doesn't really provide what the politicians say it does.

Iam confused.
Doctors are not liable for an omission but are liable for an omission

Stipulates a person is not liable for damages in a civil action for wrongful birth, wrongful life

In a wrongful life claim, the injured person (person born with birth defects) or someone on behalf of the injured person, alleges that the injury (being born) is due to the defendant's failure to advise the person's parents appropriately

EDIT: So I read it as Doctor can still be sued for malpratices just not for wrongful birth/life

 

[Camikaze]

Still, you'd want your doctor to tell you if he knew something's wrong even though you're not asking.

I would hope that the 'intentional omission' provision would still require a doctor to tell you about a birth defect if they knew of it and it was relevant. Whether a doctor omission of such information is intentional or not would seem largely independent of whether or not the mother specifically asks about birth defects. If he knows about something, and doesn't mention it, that's intentional omission, going by a common sense interpretation.

If that's how it's to be applied, then all this Bill targets is accidental omissions. That doesn't strike me as particularly nefarious. It would seem in general that less litigiousness is a good thing, though I'm not really sure why you shouldn't be able to sue a doctor who negligently missed something, but just didn't grossly negligently miss it (and I wonder how that's defined).

 

[El_Machinae]

IIRC, there's a broad anti-choice movement going on right now. I'd suggest a rider to this bill.

c) any politician voting 'yes' to this bill is thereby bound to the same law with regards to his own medical treatment, and cannot sue his own doctor if the doctor makes a 'similar' mistake

 

[LucyDuke]

If the doctor does not mention risks of birth defects, and the woman does not ask, then the doctor would not be liable. But if the woman asks what risks there are, and the doctor intentionally omits the risks, then the bill's provisions do not protect the doctor from liability.

So despite the political aspects of the bill, in a legal sense it doesn't really provide what the politicians say it does.

Deliberately withholding important information just in case someone might decide how to act on it. Bull. A doctor that knows about a problem is ethically obligated to inform whomever needs to be informed, even if the patient doesn't ask directly. If I am understanding this rule correctly, it's absolutely wrong.

Weird the bit about lawyering or not on behalf of a surprise-disabled kid.

 

[Cutlass]

Link to the actual bill information.


If the doctor does not mention risks of birth defects, and the woman does not ask, then the doctor would not be liable. But if the woman asks what risks there are, and the doctor intentionally omits the risks, then the bill's provisions do not protect the doctor from liability.

So despite the political aspects of the bill, in a legal sense it doesn't really provide what the politicians say it does.

So doctors are still legally required to act in an unethical and immoral fashion and risk serious harm to their patients through violation of the Hippocratic Oath. And will be protected from liability if they do so. That does not make the bill any less unethical or immoral.

 

[woody60707]

So doctors are still legally required to act in an unethical and immoral fashion and risk serious harm to their patients through violation of the Hippocratic Oath. And will be protected from liability if they do so. That does not make the bill any less unethical or immoral.

I have to ask, how many case do we have of a doctor lying to a patient for fear of an abortion? I have never heard of this before. I'm just going to make a guess here and say that most of the civil cases this bill will effect will have nothing to do about a doctor lying for fear of an abortion.

You would think doctors lying to there patients would make the news more often.

 

[warpus]

What the hell is going on with the U.S.?

 

[woody60707]

Ok I did a little googling. I couldn't find any cases were a doctor lied for fear of an abortion (weird, I mean there's got to be one case). Now the link below seems to be what these wrongful birth law suits deal with. And what this law is set to address.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/jury-awards-west-palm-beach-parents-of-child-1831553.html

Saying this is about some anti-choice movement makes about as much sense as when Repubs cry about voter fraud.

 

[Mise]

There is a broad swathe of the American population that would be perfectly happy to live under Sharia Law.

 

[Dreadnought]

Considering that this law refers to omitted information that is not intentionally disregarded, I'm in favor of it.

The sooner malpractice abuse by patients is eliminated, the better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is a broad swathe of the American population that would be perfectly happy to live under Sharia Law.

There is a broad swath that already does live under the Christian version of Sharia law. This is just another example.

This is why I think we need to radically change the Constitution and completely do away with the notion of states enacting any laws. I can't think of a single viable instance where one state should have different laws than any other. Is there any other modern country which has this as a fundamental basis of their constitution?

It would also be a great opportunity to allow states to "opt out".

 

[Ajidica]

What the hell is going on with the U.S.?

We declared our independence before Britian had a chance to civilize us.