You've heard of "wrongful death" lawsuits. Well, in other news, "the Arizona Senate has approved a bill that would shield doctors and others from so-called 'wrongful birth' lawsuits." Apparently, "If the bill becomes law, Arizona would join nine states barring both 'wrongful life' and 'wrongful birth' lawsuits."
The phrase was actually stunning to me: "Wrongful Birth" (and, from the story, "wrongful life"). The definition is "A medical malpractice claim brought by the parents of a child born with birth defects, alleging that negligent treatment or advice deprived them of the opportunity to avoid conception or terminate the pregnancy." What is the malpractice? "Negligent treatment or advice deprived them of the opportunity to ... terminate the pregnancy." This is not simply "Gee, I wish I would have known so I could have avoided this discomfort." It is a statement that this birth -- the life of this child -- is wrong. It is immoral. It never should have happened. The doctor is sued (and, in fact, may lose the suit). This life is the result of malpractice.
The first suit was brought in 1975, two years after Roe v Wade. The doctor failed to diagnose rubella in the mother. Because the doctor failed that diagnosis, the Texas Supreme Court allowed damages paid by the doctor for the expenses of the care and treatment of the child's impairment. Today more than 20 states recognize this as valid. The presence of birth defects in a fetus is grounds for murdering that fetus and a doctor who fails to detect the defect or inform the mother (in a timely manner) is guilty of medical malpractice, of wrongful birth. According to the news article above, "wrongful birth" lawsuits 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." How's that for vague? "I wanted a boy. If my doctor had told me in advance that it was a girl, I would have aborted. Now I have this girl and I'm suing my doctor for wrongful birth." And it would be legal.
I've complained in the past that pro-life advocates are too sloppy in their labels. Sure, the other side is equally sloppy. I'm not "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" and labeling me as such isn't reasonable. And from my side, labeling everyone who wants to keep abortion legal as "pro-abortion" isn't reasonable either. On the other hand, when I read things like this -- that it is possible to have a "wrongful birth" and that eliminating such lawsuits "would infringe on reproductive rights", I do have to wonder. Is it reasonable to call those who are "pro-abortion" (because some really are) or "pro-choice" as "anti-life"? I'm not really convinced that it's not actually accurate. It seems to be true in the cases of those who wish abort and those who wish to defend it. I don't know. Perhaps "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" aren't quite as useful terms as "anti-life".
3 comments:
There have been a plethora of movies, and probably books and short stories, involving genetic manipulation at the prenatal level. One I can think of went so far as being able to choose eye/hair/skin color, height, and the like. They even were able to map out the life expectancy for natural death time. Those that were of "natural" birth were ostracized and seen as second class citizens.
Technologically we're not far off, unfortunately, we're not that far off morally either.
If you want to see something really scary (crazy? insane? outlandish?), read Laci and Conner's Law, a law actually on the books, which declares nationally that murdering an unborn child is murder ... except, of course, if the mother wants to murder that child (abortion). National insanity.
I've felt America is schizophrenic for the longest time now.
Post a Comment