Arizona Senate approves lying to women to prevent abortions

[HomerJS]

In an attempt to quell the rhetoric, this may not be a war on women but it seems to be a very effective police action.

The Arizona Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow doctors withhold information about prenatal problems if it could make the decision to have an abortion more likely.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/08/arizona-senate-approves-lying-to-women-to-prevent-abortions/

 

[Thump553]

It absolutely astonishes me that the party that abhors having the government come between them and their doctor doesn't bat an eyelash at all when it legislates medically unnecessary procedures for others, and now legislates doctors violating their ethical obligations to their patients, when it suits the GOP's social control agenda.

They should sit down sometime and try to make some sort of coherent sense.

 

[Pens1566]

Incoming malpractice lawsuits.

 

[Ausm]

That's another prime example of small Gubermint...posting on Twitter and forwarding to my Legislator.

 

[Atreus21]

Republican state Sen. Nancy Barto introduced the measure to protect doctors from so-called “wrongful birth” lawsuits.

Barto claimed that a doctor could still be sued if there was evidence of wrongdoing.

“If a doctor intentionally or knowlingly withholds information then a lawsuit could be appropriate,” she said.

OPs headline is misleading. Lying implies that its done intentionally, and this bill doesn't protect that.

 

[Pantoot]

yeah, what atreus said...
the comments on the story though, its like everyone read the headline and decided to show the world how enlightened they were.

 

[abaez]

OPs headline is misleading. Lying implies that its done intentionally, and this bill doesn't protect that.

Just want to make this clear - you're ok with a doctor finding out their patient's child has a life threatening disease that leaves a child with 1-2 years to live after it's born (all other factors of the pregnancy would be normal), and NOT telling the patient this?

 

[Ausm]

yeah, what atreus said...
the comments on the story though, its like everyone read the headline and decided to show the world how enlightened they were.

So withholding pertinent Medical information to a patient is not in essence lying? Ok how about misleading or incredibly dishonest.

 

[Atreus21]

Just want to make this clear - you're ok with a doctor finding out their patient's child has a life threatening disease that leaves a child with 1-2 years to live after it's born, and NOT telling the patient this?

I'm okay with a doctor not being penalized in the event that he fails to find a defect with the child which becomes apparent after birth.

 

[Atreus21]

So withholding pertinent Medical information to a patient is not in essence lying? Ok how about misleading or incredibly dishonest.

Barto claimed that a doctor could still be sued if there was evidence of wrongdoing.

“If a doctor intentionally or knowlingly withholds information then a lawsuit could be appropriate,” she said.

I already addressed that.

 

[abaez]

I'm okay with a doctor not being penalized in the event that he fails to find a defect with the child which becomes apparent after birth.

Well that's obvious, but that's not the issue of this bill. The bill allows the doctor to "withhold information" - meaning that they have the information and KNOW there is a problem, but not tell the patient about it.

 

[Ausm]

I already addressed that.

You said the Title was misleading so your backing the Bill then?

 

[Atreus21]

Well that's obvious, but that's not the issue of this bill. The bill allows the doctor to "withhold information" - meaning that they have the information and KNOW there is a problem, but not tell the patient about it.

Jesus Christ. No it doesn't.

“If a doctor intentionally or knowlingly withholds information then a lawsuit could be appropriate,” she said.

 

[Atreus21]

You said the Title was misleading so your backing the Bill then?

What's the problem with it? It protects doctors in the event that they mistakenly say the child is healthy when it's not.

I'm having to suppress the idea that there are people who actually would sue the doctor because their child accidentally lived.

 

[sixone]

OPs headline is misleading. Lying implies that its done intentionally, and this bill doesn't protect that.

True. Here's a link to the AP's story on the bill.

The Arizona Senate has approved a bill that would shield doctors and others from so-called "wrongful birth" lawsuits.

Those are lawsuits that can arise if physicians don't inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion.

The Senate's 20-9 vote Tuesday sends the bill to the state House.

The bill's sponsor is Republican Nancy Barto of Phoenix. She says allowing the medical malpractice lawsuits endorses the idea that if a child is born with a disability, someone is to blame.

Barto said the bill will still allow "true malpractice suits" to proceed.

If the bill becomes law, Arizona would join nine states barring both "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" lawsuits.

Opponents of the bill say it's unnecessary and would infringe on reproductive rights.

Nothing in there about lying.

 

[Thump553]

Atreus21 it appears you are totally distorting this proposed bill. There would be absolutely no need for any new legislation to do what you claim this bill does. Medically speaking if the doctor has (or should have through the exercise of prudent medical practice) relevant material information he is presently under a duty to give that information to his patient. This proposed statute relieves that obligation in situations where disclosure might lead to an abortion.

It is a patently bald attempt to distort the doctor-patient relationship for social agenda purposes. Disgusting move from a party that claims to love liberty and freedom.

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus21 it appears you are totally distorting this proposed bill. There would be absolutely no need for any new legislation to do what you claim this bill does. Medically speaking if the doctor has (or should have through the exercise of prudent medical practice) relevant material information he is presently under a duty to give that information to his patient. This proposed statute relieves that obligation in situations where disclosure might lead to an abortion.

It is a patently bald attempt to distort the doctor-patient relationship for social agenda purposes. Disgusting move from a party that claims to love liberty and freedom.

This must be the 5th time.

This bill does not protect a doctor who has acted negligently. It appears to protect doctors who, though they followed all the correct procedures, nonetheless did not detect a birth defect.

It's interesting that you claim that I'm making a bald attempt at distorting this. The only distortions seem to be coming from those who are desperately attempting to make this into something it clearly isn't.

 

[HomerJS]

True. Here's a link to the AP's story on the bill.



Nothing in there about lying.

To quote your own link...

Those are lawsuits that can arise if physicians don't inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion.

If you go in for a prenatal exam and the doctor witholds information of a problem, at the end of exam the doctor will either directly tell you, infer, or by default lead the patient to believe everything is ok. In this case a lie by omission is still a lie.

 

[cybrsage]

I am surprised no one bothered to look at the actual bill yet. Here it is, for all to read in is four sentence (body of the legislation) glory:

SENATE BILL 1359

​

AN ACT​

amending title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 12-718; relating to civil liability.


(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)




Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 12-718, to read:
START_STATUTE12-718. Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application
A. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful birth based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.
B. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful life based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person bringing the action would not or should not have been born.
C. This section applies to any claim regardless of whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition.
D. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/sb1359s.htm&Session_ID=107

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sounds more like the bill is designed to prevent law suits such as the one that was recently discussed in here.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2230531

 

[sixone]

To quote your own link...

If you go in for a prenatal exam and the doctor witholds information of a problem, at the end of exam the doctor will either directly tell you, infer, or by default lead the patient to believe everything is ok. In this case a lie by omission is still a lie.

Not all prenatal problems lead to birth defects or disability. If the doctor cannot present a certain and reliable diagnosis, he would be completely irresponsible to frighten the parents unnecessarily.

 

[HomerJS]

Sounds more like the bill is designed to prevent law suits such as the one that was recently discussed in here.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2230531

Almost. In that case there was a misdiagnosis, an accident. If you look at the law it says a person't won't be held liable for an act or omission. An omission is an accident an act is intent. Any doctor withholding information on purpose should be sued.

They try to cover their asses by saying doctors can still be sued for a "gross act". A definition so broad it would be tied up in court forever.

 

[Atreus21]

Any doctor withholding information on purpose should be sued.

I absolutely agree.

 

[cubby1223]

I am surprised no one bothered to look at the actual bill yet. Here it is, for all to read in is four sentence (body of the legislation) glory:

[/COLOR]
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/sb1359s.htm&Session_ID=107

Heh

Seems fairly good writing to me.

And it seems many in this thread just heard someone else's outrage and hate and decided to pile on.

I mean, all it really does is specifically state that you must prove intentional wrongdoing on the part of the doctor, which, is what you have to do anyways to win a lawsuit.

 

[cubby1223]

Almost. In that case there was a misdiagnosis, an accident. If you look at the law it says a person't won't be held liable for an act or omission. An omission is an accident an act is intent. Any doctor withholding information on purpose should be sued.

They try to cover their asses by saying doctors can still be sued for a "gross act". A definition so broad it would be tied up in court forever.

Then hate on the court system.

We both know there is no way for a legislature to write out each and every conceivably possible situation a doctor can be in.

It is a guideline for juries to decide on whether the doctor is responsible or not.