Mother sues hospital over testing failure

07/25/2009 01:20:50 PM · #26

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

If only this issue was that simple. The woman's, the child's and the mans's rights are inextricably intertwined. To me it always boils down to where you believe those rights begin. I for one can't put faith in mankind to correctly determine where life begins so I have to error on the side of the child and believe their rights supercede even those of the woman in all but the most extreme circumstances. In this basic debate that there will never be agreement.

Good points DJWoodward. I agree, when it boils down to that basic debate there will always be people on both sides who will not agree. I tend to come down on the side of the woman as opposed to the foetus. I do respect both sides of the debate though.

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

Is a less than a �normal� life worse than no life at all? In some cases maybe, but looking at the picture in the article it looks as though the boy (and mom) have some quality of life. There seems to be some true joy in their expressions.

Regarding the case at hand. If the hospital had missed a life-threatening situation that was not acted upon making the problem worse I would be sympathetic. But in this case they caused no damage, the condition already existed and couldn�t be mitigated. This is just a case of some desperate parent wanting find blame where no blame exists. (IMHO)

I do see what you mean. One of the reasons that i put 'normal' in scare quotes. The mother and son do look happy in the image and i'm sure there is much love between them but one photo and 400 words doesn't paint a very full picture. I still understand her comments though.

Regarding the hospital. I don't tend to think its a great idea to deprive an already cash starved National Health Service of yet more money through lawsuits but if it is found to be negligent by not discovering the defects then i think there should be financial help given to the mother to bring up the child.

07/25/2009 01:25:34 PM · #27

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Nah, good debates are, well, good. I just find it pointless to POINT OUT that one thinks that the thread they're responding to is possibly only meant to be inflammatory. If you really think that, don't respond to it! lol. ("you" being generic use, not you specifically). Just grabs my goat every time how many people yell and scream about trolls and the like, but seldom just ignore them.

I get what you mean K10Guy, there's nothing wrong with inflammatory comments, or pointing them out, if it sparks a discussion, which it seems to have done in this case.

07/25/2009 01:28:13 PM · #28

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Nah, good debates are, well, good. I just find it pointless to POINT OUT that one thinks that the thread they're responding to is possibly only meant to be inflammatory. If you really think that, don't respond to it! lol. ("you" being generic use, not you specifically). Just grabs my goat every time how many people yell and scream about trolls and the like, but seldom just ignore them.

I get what you mean K10Guy, there's nothing wrong with inflammatory comments, or pointing them out, if it sparks a discussion, which it seems to have done in this case.

Pointing out that it's inflammatory doesn't spark discussion. Discussion sparks discussion ;)

07/25/2009 01:41:13 PM · #29

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

Regarding the hospital. I don't tend to think its a great idea to deprive an already cash starved National Health Service of yet more money through lawsuits but if it is found to be negligent by not discovering the defects then i think there should be financial help given to the mother to bring up the child.

First, I want to say I appreciate the civil discussion and I to respect your right to disagree. I guess for me, negligence has to result in damage before compensation can be expected. In this case the hospital "caused" no damage. The child's condition existed whether they discovered it or not and it wasn't exacerbated by the hospital. I do hope that the family receives all of the help that they need. I just don�t feel that it�s the hospital�s responsibility to provide it.

07/25/2009 01:49:04 PM · #30

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Pointing out that it's inflammatory doesn't spark discussion. Discussion sparks discussion ;)

Heh, quite right. You've got me there!

07/25/2009 01:59:10 PM · #31

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Regarding the hospital. I don't tend to think its a great idea to deprive an already cash starved National Health Service of yet more money through lawsuits but if it is found to be negligent by not discovering the defects then i think there should be financial help given to the mother to bring up the child.

First, I want to say I appreciate the civil discussion and I to respect your right to disagree. I guess for me, negligence has to result in damage before compensation can be expected. In this case the hospital "caused" no damage. The child's condition existed whether they discovered it or not and it wasn't exacerbated by the hospital. I do hope that the family receives all of the help that they need. I just don�t feel that it�s the hospital�s responsibility to provide it.

Very good points. I'd say that negligence implies that the job in hand has been done badly or not at all. If i went for regular cancer screening and for some reason this was performed badly and as a result missed my cancer until it was too late to be treatable i would say that was negligent. The cancer screening is there was one specific purpose: to catch cancer at an early stage when it is more easily treatable. If it fails to do that through bad practice then it is negligent.

07/25/2009 02:22:21 PM · #32

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

I can certainly agree that there will always be controversy, but really the only one is of the woman and child.

The man's rights are really, well, no rights at all.

No man ever has the right to tell any woman that she must bear his child.....that is the highest form of personal invasion......the whole concept of the sperm donor having say over the invasion of a new life in a woman's body just boggles my mind. Like it's some kind of big thing for that to happen.

Part of the harmony of a relationship is that the woman agrees to, and allows the life growing inside her to flourish. Nobody has the right to tell her otherwise.

Nobody has rights over another's body. That it ever happened is so wrong on so many levels.

Had not free will occurred, then the natural process would most likely go unchecked.....but that's not the case any more as it isn't the case where we just up and die from appendicitis like any other creature in the animal kingdom. It's no longer just an issue of biology.

07/25/2009 02:26:15 PM · #33

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

But due to the hospital's possible negligence, incompetence, or just making a human error, the option was never available.

They *are* accountable for what is at least a mistake, at most, gross incompetence. It really doesn't matter to make the point what the quality of life is.....this child does in fact pose a burden where the parents should have been at least forewarned regardless of what the options were at that point. ESPECIALLY considering the family history and what a legal quagmire the OB/GYN world is now from a malpractice standpoint. There have been too many OB/GYNs, and good ones, driven out because of the malpractice issues.

07/25/2009 02:30:19 PM · #34

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DJWoodward:
If only this issue was that simple. The woman's, the child's and the mans's rights are inextricably intertwined. To me it always boils down to where you believe those rights begin. I for one can't put faith in mankind to correctly determine where life begins so I have to error on the side of the child and believe their rights supercede even those of the woman in all but the most extreme circumstances. In this basic debate that there will never be agreement.

I can certainly agree that there will always be controversy, but really the only one is of the woman and child.

The man's rights are really, well, no rights at all.

No man ever has the right to tell any woman that she must bear his child.....that is the highest form of personal invasion......the whole concept of the sperm donor having say over the invasion of a new life in a woman's body just boggles my mind. Like it's some kind of big thing for that to happen.

Part of the harmony of a relationship is that the woman agrees to, and allows the life growing inside her to flourish. Nobody has the right to tell her otherwise.

Nobody has rights over another's body. That it ever happened is so wrong on so many levels.

Had not free will occurred, then the natural process would most likely go unchecked.....but that's not the case any more as it isn't the case where we just up and die from appendicitis like any other creature in the animal kingdom. It's no longer just an issue of biology.

Jeb, it takes two to tango. In an adult relationship, both parties decide to partake in a certain act that may or may not result in a certain, well, result. Denying the potential father ALL rights once that result becomes a reality is ridiculous. The woman needs to realize that she made a decision as much as the man did, and both parties need to consider the feelings of each other and respect ALL options.

To just toss the man aside just because he's not the one carrying the child is to be completely disrespectful, disregarding, and dismissive of his feelings and responsibilities. As a woman, if you don't want your partner a part of your decisions regarding your body, DON'T ENGAGE IN AN ACT THAT MAY RESULT IN THAT OUTCOME.

Period.

Cases of rape, etc, are obviously not covered under this.

07/25/2009 02:31:57 PM · #35

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

I agree entirely with your example. In that case damage is caused; the missed diagnosis allowed the cancer to worsen until untreatable. The damage may be more invasive/aggressive surgery, shortening of life, etc.

In the case at hand, the child's condition didn't change because it was missed in testing. All that was affected was the parent's decision to abort or not. Yes some would say that the family is now burdened by this situation without being able to chose that burden but there are risks in life. The root cause of the burden is that the condition exists at no fault of the hospital not that they didn't know have a choice to avoid it.

Let me give you another real life example. My grandson was born with a heart defect that should have been caught in utero. At 8 days old his condition become apparent as he went into respiratory failure at home. After two life-flights and through the miracle work of Dartmouth Medical Center and Boston Childrens Hospital he was saved. We were so grateful that we never considered suing the original hospital that missed the diagnosis. Had it turned out another way we may not have been so content. Did their negligence cause damage? Some would say yes, but we're happy to have a healthy one-year-old today.

07/25/2009 02:38:35 PM · #36

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I'll tell you what.....nobody yelled and screamed....

And nobody said "Hey Ed, what do you think?"

We were having a fine discussion then for whatever reason, you decided to start picking.

I don't know why it is that YOU feel that you have to be some kind of hall monitor for your own set of standards, but I'm really kind of tired of it when you have these thinly veiled shots at me during the course of it.

I don't take shots at you because quite frankly, I find your generally pessimistic attitude towards life and your fellow man pretty much of a downer, so just knock it off.

Let's just stipulate that you think I'm some special kind of asshole and leave it at that, okay?

BUT.....bear in mind that what I used to have for you in the way of respect has been replaced by a pretty serious disdain for your snide comments and pointed remarks.

What happened? You used to be a pretty upbeat guy?

Yoiu wanna come down in the mud with me, fine, then be prepared to have your nose pushed into it as well, because I'm done with the crap.

So how about just sending me a PM if you don't like what I have to say and keep your snotty remarks and clever little comments out of any real discussion.

Like YOU said above.....

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

If you really think that, don't respond to it!

07/25/2009 02:40:27 PM · #37

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Very good points. I'd say that negligence implies that the job in hand has been done badly or not at all. If i went for regular cancer screening and for some reason this was performed badly and as a result missed my cancer until it was too late to be treatable i would say that was negligent. The cancer screening is there was one specific purpose: to catch cancer at an early stage when it is more easily treatable. If it fails to do that through bad practice then it is negligent.

I agree entirely with your example. In that case damage is caused; the missed diagnosis allowed the cancer to worsen until untreatable. The damage may be more invasive/aggressive surgery, shortening of life, etc.

In the case at hand, the child's condition didn't change because it was missed in testing. All that was affected was the parent's decision to abort or not. Yes some would say that the family is now burdened by this situation without being able to chose that burden but there are risks in life. The root cause of the burden is that the condition exists at no fault of the hospital not that they didn't know have a choice to avoid it.

Let me give you another real life example. My grandson was born with a heart defect that should have been caught in utero. At 8 days old his condition become apparent as he went into respiratory failure at home. After two life-flights and through the miracle work of Dartmouth Medical Center and Boston Childrens Hospital he was saved. We were so grateful that we never considered suing the original hospital that missed the diagnosis. Had it turned out another way we may not have been so content. Did their negligence cause damage? Some would say yes, but we're happy to have a healthy one-year-old today.

I was trying to find the wording for a response of this nature, but you found it better than I could.

07/25/2009 02:42:03 PM · #38

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Denying the potential father ALL rights once that result becomes a reality is ridiculous. The woman needs to realize that she made a decision as much as the man did, and both parties need to consider the feelings of each other and respect ALL options.

To just toss the man aside just because he's not the one carrying the child is to be completely disrespectful, disregarding, and dismissive of his feelings and responsibilities.

His feelings and responsibilities?

How does that cover any right for him to demand that she carry the baby to term?

What happens when they both figure oiut that they made a mistake and they have no business being a couple and/or parents together?

The philosophical issues have no place in the biologiocal aspects of the extraordinary changes that go in the woman's body, and the man's "feelings and responsibilities" have *nothing* to do with that.

07/25/2009 02:42:45 PM · #39

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Denying the potential father ALL rights once that result becomes a reality is ridiculous. The woman needs to realize that she made a decision as much as the man did, and both parties need to consider the feelings of each other and respect ALL options.

To just toss the man aside just because he's not the one carrying the child is to be completely disrespectful, disregarding, and dismissive of his feelings and responsibilities.

His feelings and responsibilities?

How does that cover any right for him to demand that she carry the baby to term?

What happens when they both figure oiut that they made a mistake and they have no business being a couple and/or parents together?

The philosophical issues have no place in the biologiocal aspects of the extraordinary changes that go in the woman's body, and the man's "feelings and responsibilities" have *nothing* to do with that.

Two people making a choice and dealing with the consequences has everything to do with everything.

07/25/2009 02:45:44 PM · #40

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I can certainly agree that there will always be controversy, but really the only one is of the woman and child.

The man's rights are really, well, no rights at all.

I understand your point but the reason I say that even the man's rights are inextricably entwined is that if a man truly believes that the child's life should be preserved he has the right and possibly even the duty to defend it. That's why I feel the basic problem always comes back to where life begins.

It just isn't that simple.

07/25/2009 02:46:17 PM · #41

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

Let me give you another real life example. My grandson was born with a heart defect that should have been caught in utero. At 8 days old his condition become apparent as he went into respiratory failure at home. After two life-flights and through the miracle work of Dartmouth Medical Center and Boston Childrens Hospital he was saved. We were so grateful that we never considered suing the original hospital that missed the diagnosis. Had it turned out another way we may not have been so content. Did their negligence cause damage? Some would say yes, but we're happy to have a healthy one-year-old today.

All of this boils down to a choice at the end of the day.

I'm not a sue-happy person, neither is my wife. We would on no level do anything like this.

The actual issue *IS* should the hospital have caught this?

Considering the family history and the sector of the medical field? IMNSHO, yes.

Should they be awarded a bazillion dollars?

That's certainly not for me to determine, but they should at least acknowledge that they made an error, or at least were not as thorough as they should have been.

But if they do that, they're going to get killed in court.

So now what?

07/25/2009 02:48:03 PM · #42

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Two people making a choice and dealing with the consequences has everything to do with everything.

I guess because of the way that I feel about women, I will see the pregnancy and abortion thing differently.

I will *always" feel that as long as a baby is inside its mother, that I have *NO* say.

07/25/2009 02:48:56 PM · #43

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Two people making a choice and dealing with the consequences has everything to do with everything.

I guess because of the way that I feel about women, I will see the pregnancy and abortion thing differently.

I will *always" feel that as long as a baby is inside its mother, that I have *NO* say.

That's unfortunate.

07/25/2009 02:52:19 PM · #44

Originally posted by DJWoodward:

But that's a philosophical point of view. And in reality, the percentage of men who would actually take and care for that child should the mother be in disagreement is probably abysmally low.

It simply isn't about feelings, philosophical standpoints, and legal rights. It's about the reality of caring for the child.

The woman must bear the child, and in the vast majority of cases, care for the child as well.

07/25/2009 02:53:21 PM · #45

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Two people making a choice and dealing with the consequences has everything to do with everything.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I guess because of the way that I feel about women, I will see the pregnancy and abortion thing differently.

I will *always" feel that as long as a baby is inside its mother, that I have *NO* say.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

That's unfortunate.

Because I will not invade her body?

07/25/2009 02:58:29 PM · #46

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Two people making a choice and dealing with the consequences has everything to do with everything.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I guess because of the way that I feel about women, I will see the pregnancy and abortion thing differently.

I will *always" feel that as long as a baby is inside its mother, that I have *NO* say.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That's unfortunate.

Because I will not invade her body?

Because you're just handing over an element of yourself and completely disregarding your own feelings and emotions over a matter of biology. As you say, that's your choice, that's fine, you can live with that, I respect that, but as a societal POLICY, it is reprehensible.

07/25/2009 03:11:20 PM · #47

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

No, as a societal policy, legislation to govern what choices a woman makes is reprehensible.

The decision, the choices, the weighing the consequences, yes, all that *should* be taken into consideration, but after the fact, it's the woman's problem to deal with ALL the problems that can crop up, and for anyone to think that their thoughts or feelings have any bearing on that is simply wrong.

The bottom line is that all too many people *think* they can and should have say in it, but as long as that child's not inside their body, they have NO right.

07/25/2009 03:13:54 PM · #48

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Because you're just handing over an element of yourself and completely disregarding your own feelings and emotions over a matter of biology. As you say, that's your choice, that's fine, you can live with that, I respect that, but as a societal POLICY, it is reprehensible.

No, as a societal policy, legislation to govern what choices a woman makes is reprehensible.

The decision, the choices, the weighing the consequences, yes, all that *should* be taken into consideration, but after the fact, it's the woman's problem to deal with ALL the problems that can crop up, and for anyone to think that their thoughts or feelings have any bearing on that is simply wrong.

The bottom line is that all too many people *think* they can and should have say in it, but as long as that child's not inside their body, they have NO right.

I disagree completely. Like protestant and catholic, we'll have to leave it at that.

07/25/2009 03:16:16 PM · #49

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But that's a philosophical point of view...

This whole issue is a matter of one's philosophy or beliefs isn't it. That's why there will never be agreement :-)

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It's about the reality of caring for the child.

Again, that's why it isn't simple. Saying that women in vast majority of cases must care for the child as well may be true. However that doesn't mean the minority of men would take the resposibility for the child's rights should have any less protection. Don't confuse the central problem with ancillary facts.

Message edited by author 2009-07-25 15:17:35.