I understand. I have ten kids - one of whom died of a heart defect. #2 has Type I Diabetes and juvenile arthritis. But I don't love my kids any less for not being what I expect them to be, nor do I waste my time blaming others for my challenges (or theirs). That's what I see in this woman: someone too busy wanting to blame life for being life to just buckle down and live. Stuff happens. You can either waste your days crying foul or you can deal with it and move on.

But, if she were only willing to take on the responsibilities of raising a healthy kid she'd put the kid up for adoption, right? I don't come to the conclusion that she doesn't want the child in reading this story (the opposite). And, in America, she has a right to opt out of the pregnancy if the conditions don't meet her desires. I may personally have problems with the morals of that. But...what am I missing here?... Maybe I should read the story again...

OK, I just read it again. I think she has a simple, deductive argument here. However, she thinks winning the lawsuit will result in a happier childhood for the kid. Since she filed it 4 years ago, I'm not sure that's the case. I'm not convinced this is just a story about a bad mother. I also don't think she'll be awarded anything.

Sorry to beat a dead horse. This is a topic close to my heart.

This isn't a case of medical negligence resulting in liability on the part of a medical professional, however. In such a case, I would agree with you that the liability would be causal and determined based on a court decision with entitlement to reparations.

This is a case where the woman wanted to create liability where none existed. The fault of the disability was not the medical professional's. To make them pay for such is to invent causal liability where none previously existed. That is a very dangerous road for society in general and one I absolutely oppose.

However, that's not what is at the heart of the matter anyway. The real complaint this woman is making is that she is only willing to take on the responsibilities of being a parent if it fits into her preconceived (no pun intended) notions - which is that of the care of a normal child with no birth defects or unforeseen costs. She wasn't interested in becoming a parent in anything less than ideal circumstances. She is attempting to blame the medical techs for not being able to opt out of becoming a parent.

Yeah, my wife and girlfriends love mine...

LOL

Very interesting. "If the woman wins and has all those medical costs paid for by others, has she really risen to the same level of love and sacrifice you have?" Honestly?...I think so. Money can't reduce the pain felt by having a disabled child. But, if a person is disabled (especially in the cases of neurological disorders) due to some medical negligence, and we don't allow for liability on the part of the medical professional (trust me...we almost never do) we have a big, big mess on our hands. And, in short, that's what we have in America now.

There was a lovely, young lady at my college who had CF. She was bright, beautiful...but likely dead long ago, now. I think of her every time I hear of CF.

I applaud you for your care and sacrifice for your son. Those are testaments to exactly the kind of love a child needs.

One slight difference I see between your example and that of the subject of the article, is whose money would be used. If the woman wins and has all those medical costs paid for by others, has she really risen to the same level of love and sacrifice you have?

Money is a tool and its use can be an indicator of investment, but I don't think anyone would disagree that it is easier to spend someone else's money than our own.

Very few people understand that the medical system is ONLY a business. The citizens have been brainwashed into believing there's some benevolence in all those people in white doctor coats. There isn't. Often, there isn't any skill, either.

That's tough. Nothing bothers me more than disabled kids.

If a child has an illness like CF it takes money to treat them. You can't get treated for free. That is what I was talking about.

So far, my son's disability has cost me about $900k over the past decade, from my own pocket. No...even under Obamacare nothing's free.

So, she should have been forced to have a disabled child? The (too short) article states that the child is the love of her life.

What gives here?...

I just looked both of them up. You are correct on MTHFR and it doesn't seem there is a test for CP. Seem to me they should be able to get any test they want even if it means paying for it themselves.

I've observed hundreds of children from 0 to 18 on a weekly basis over the past twenty years and seen quite a bit - from those who had everything to those who had nothing. I've seen really good kids who came from parents who were doctors and dentists and really bad kids spoiled by their rich parents. I've seen really good kids whose parents worked four jobs just to try to stay afloat and I've seen really bad kids who did nothing but envy what they didn't have because their parents blamed their lack of success on society. So the correlation of money to well-being isn't particularly apparent or justified for me. Their parents' attitudes, however, have been strongly correlated to their successes. The parents who took time every day just to eat dinner with their kids, help them with homework, make them do chores, teach them basic respect for other people... Those were the kids I knew I could depend on.

Given that experience, I have to cast a significantly jaundiced eye toward this woman and her purported motives. The saddest part is that I can identify kids (like this woman's) who know their parents don't want them or don't give them the attention they crave. Those are the ones who act out in school (or anywhere else). They're the ones who are highly susceptible to peer pressure. Those are the ones who end up becoming teenage parents, high school dropouts, and gang members.

What if she wanted a test for a brain tumor on herself, the doctor denied it, and she died from a brain tumor a year later. Would the doctor be liable then? Perhaps a little? I assume so. Why wouldn't he? She's got a case, but she won't get squat.

What if she asked her doctor to do this test on her elderly parent and was denied?

Truth be told, she could have aborted with the knowledge the test would have given her. What's the Objectivist take on that? My version is that she had every right to terminate that birth if given the information.

A very close friend of mine (pregnant when we were with ours) learned late in the pregnancy that their baby had downs. They terminated and started over. What if they had been denied that test after asking for it?

Maybe I have a unique perspective here because I have a disabled kid. I both love my kid more than anybody in the world and acknowledge that raising him is a massive pain in my ass. It's destroyed my wife. People can, and should be given the information available to them to make informed decisions. That's the Objectivist in me talking - and I don't mean to offend.

What good is technology if we don't use it to make informed decisions? Just what in the hell are we doing here, otherwise?

Are you implying that those are mutually exclusive?

Maybe she's filing a suit because she loves the kid and thinks the money will help her take better care of the child. (It will)

Truth be told...I doubt she could have gotten the test. She thought it was a substantial risk. The doctor didn't. She was right. The doctor was wrong. But...I'm assuming there is a test for CF. Maybe there isn't?

There's a test for a genetic abnormality (if my memory serves me right it's MTHFR). They should test for it. They don't. Lots of kids are screwed up because of the test not being done, and a lot of doctors being clueless. And, its effects are avoidable after birth if the baby's health is managed appropriately.

This is all a weird area of medical ethics...

Edited to add that this lady will never get a dime.

And it is a form of slavery. Regardless of which
country it is, involuntary servitude is what it is.

Sounds like a legitimate malpractice claim to me.

I can't blame her for not requesting a test that she didn't know existed. It's a doctor's job to inform you about options like that.

Depends how tight knit the society is. In Israel, for example, serving in the IDF is a requirement (they have a draft) and also a privilege. In the Soviet Union, it was only one bit better than going to jail or being shot (depending on the time).

It is. What circumstances? Conviction of a crime?
I don't recall that that was the case with any of
the North's draftees. Forcing someone into involun-
tary servitude is necessarily practicing slavery.Still,
while I don't claim Lincoln was perfect, he and his
cause did eventually get rid of slavery.

I have asked you before to give a specific source for your opinion against DiLorenzo. Would you mind saying what the source of this is, please? I have not seen anything to disprove DiLorenzo's research on Lincoln as published in his books. You seem to be saying here that he is taking money for his writing. Well, that is what authors do, including quite a few good authors here in the Gulch.
Spill it, Michael ;^)