Spanish Doctor ordered to pay child support for botched abortion

At most, the doctor should lose his license and hope to God that his insurance covers such gross malpractice. The only person who has any business at all paying child support is the guy who put his cock in this dumb bitch. You got an abortion, and things aren't returning to how they should be... I think I'd get a second opinion? Don't you ladies think you'd get a second opinion?

Wait a minute, so now that he's a cash cow, he's loved. Weeeeelllllll, the mask comes off.

Not even close. This dr committed egregious malpractice. The result of that is a lifetime of expenses for her and her child. I have no problem holding the dr responsible for his negligence.

"Sweetheart, when you were a cluster of dividing cells embedded in mommy's uterine wall, she wanted to suck you out and end your gestation into a human fetus. But after the doctor screwed up and left you in me, you kept growing until the law said mommy couldn't suck you out anymore, then you became mommy's little ray of sunshine!"

I'm sure the kid will be cool with that.

Ok to put it in picture prespective....

At the stage where she went in telling the Doc she needed a abortion.

Its not exactly Where's Waldo at this stage..... BUT..... If she didnt have a full bladder when she went in for the ultrasound. Than this image would not show up the fetus if it be hiding behind her bladder. Typical you have to weight a minnum of 1.5 hr. after downing a ton of fluids, and repeat the examine if there is any doubt BUT....The doctor probably just did a external ultasound, if he had to in Vaginaly maybe would have avoided this problem

And this at the point of 22 weeks. The point of no return
Also, her emotional distress can be from the fact of having to have a baby that she tried to abort, not knowing if it caused damage to the fetus, or handicapped the infant. I would say that is emotional distress, regardless. Congrats on having a healthy baby, fuck that doctor. Thats why you have insurance, but does the child support come out of pocket or his practice?

Why don't they just let the doc have the kid, even-Stevens?

1) Helluva way to start your life.

2) Now if we can do something similar to everyone else who impedes the abortion of unwanted children.

I suppose the doctor/clinic could have had an ulterior motive. Perhaps even of the pro-life variety.

I'm doubting that, seeing as he's probably not going to get much business in any medical capacity anymore.

But either way, hopelessly incompetent or actively pro-"you must give birth but then I don't give a shit what happens to it," preventing an abortion implies direct responsibility for the baby.

Incompetence is one thing, intentionally deceiving a patient until an abortion is no longer an option is quite another. In this hypothetical scenario incompetence seems the lesser offense.

And this is one of the prime reasons why they wanted to make trans-vaginal ultrasound standard when performing abortions.

Not fucking women hating or any of the other garbage spewed by the kind of abortion supporters who think abortion should be able to be obtained freely without a hint of what is being done apparent in the process.

Trans-vaginal ultrasounds are the best quality and most informative test you can have. The best way to make sure the job is really done and done safely.

It's sad that people would prefer a less safe procedure and risk a higher infection rate than allow this test to become standard.

How would performing a transvaginal ultrasound BEFORE the abortion (which the laws in question require) had any effect whatsoever on detecting if the abortion had been completed successfully weeks and weeks after.

Talk about a reach.

And no one is talking about banning transvaginal ultrasounds. If women want one, or the doctor feels it is necessary, then hey go for it.

And yes, it very much was about fucking women over, by forcing them first to have the procedure, forcing them to pay for it, and then forcing them to look at the results. The typical 'LOOK IT, LOOK AT IT! BAD GIRL! BAD GIRL! BE ASHAMED! BE ASHAMED! Typical of the Fundy Moralists behind these things.

I'm only surprised the legislation didn't required the doctor to swat the women on the nose with a rolled up newspaper afterwards.

It should be done before and after for maximum information and safety reasons.

I know, I went through it before and after a D&C which is essentially the same procedure without a pregnancy. It really wasn't a big deal and I suffered no ill effects at all from the procedure. Either procedure.

Making someone look at it is a separate issue, although if someone can't even face the reality of what they are doing, I have to question if they are really doing what is right for them and not bowing to outside pressures.

It is not society's place to ensure that they are "facing reality" to anyone's satisfaction, and medical procedure should not be dictated by sanctimonious, political dick-waving.

I'm glad. Now the evil starts when you turn that personal experience into a law to govern other people.

Right. That's why nobody should be allowed to have an appendectomy unless they're happy with looking at bloody human entrails.

Yeah...I prefer the best possible equipment and tests when facing any medical procedure and so should everyone!

Let's use the less definitive ultrasound because it doesn't hurt feelings as much as the better option does.

If this was any other topic, people would think that's insanity.

The choice of whether or not to act on your preferences should be yours alone, between you and your doctor. The obvious goal of one segment of society to guilt and shame a woman out of having an abortion should not be allowed to influence things in the slightest.

If this was any other topic, people would understand that it's insanity to have a law dictate to doctors and patients what the best solution for their case is.

Actually, scratch that. People do understand that, even with this topic. Which is why that law got exactly teh reaction it deserved.

How in the case of abortion is a transvaginal ultrasound any better?

Keep in mind not all abortions are the same.

And just like it the doctors job to determine what kind of abortion procedure best fits the situation, isn't it their job to determine what prep procedures are needed?

And cut the bullshit, no one is buying it. You and your kind aren't proposing legal codification of 'best procedures' for anything not related to women's reproductive rights.

So you're a virgin, then?

"You and your kind" and what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Oh, and for your information, you are incorrect. I've been involved in several petitions and written letters about birth control and it's safety as well as dialysis and issues about it, including the need to codify or "uncodify" certain elements that are really fucked up.

I am a woman...a woman who knows that if a mistake happens she is going to have to have an abortion or probably die. The last thing in the world I want is an abortion, but if forced to have one, I'd want the best and safest care available and that would include trans-vaginal ultrasound. Why would I want any less for any other woman than the best care?

There is certainly the fact that Shakes is correct....if this doctor has used TVU then he wouldn't be paying child support for 26 years and the woman would have gotten what she went there for.

Although, isn't it interesting how despite whatever drove her there to begin with that this woman now loves and adores her son and is glad to have him. It's clear since that's true, it would have been a tragedy for a life to have been snuffed out.

What makes you think that is any of your business?

Ah, wrongful life claims. There was a foot note about this in first year torts.

There was a case where a woman got a tubal ligation and it was botched and she got pregnant. The court allowed normal monetary damages such as [FONT=&quot]medical expenses of the procedure and pregnancy, subsequent costs of sterilization, lost wages, loss of consortium, medical expenses for prenatal and postnatal care and delivery. But they wouldn't allow for recovery of emotional damages. They said the birth of a child may have positive emotional effects and so at the outset can't say the parents will ultimately be damaged. Other courts have denied damages entirely.

The best quote was from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Shahen v. Knight: "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]To allow damages would mean the physician would have to pay for the fun, joy, and affection which the plaintiff will have in the rearing of and educating of this plaintiff's fifth child."

Then there are cases where the child sued the doctor (via parent obviously) for wrongful life. These claims typically involve a child saying they were better off not being born then living with whatever disorder they were born with. These are mostly rejected though some limited damages have been awarded where the disorder is not life shortening but the child is likely to incur extra medical expenses.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Then the proper course is to sue him for malpractice not make him pay child support as if he was the father. You sue the actual father for child support. That's just duh.

That's a completely different point than the wrong one you made above.

Let's say the father and mother agreed to abort the baby. The dr committed malpractice preventing that. Why should the mother or father pay. The dr should and is.

No, sorry, I have to disagree here. The doctor did not magically become the father in this case so it's retarded, completely retarded, to sue him for child support. You sue him for malpractice and the costs of raising the child should be considered when determining the award of damages. That's it, done.

You could do it that way. He pays the same amount in a lump sum or over 26 years. Personally, I think he'd rather the payment plan. Either way he's paying for the kid, it's just what you want to call it.

If they do it as a malpractice case then his malpractice insurance covers it and he doesn't have to directly pay it himself. Instead he would have to pay hire insurance premiums which would only be a fraction of the total cost. It's an all around win.

I agree with the switching to trans-vaginal part. Too many ultrasounds by untrained eyes are giving women the run around. There is just to many factors to make early detection 100% accurate. However, I personally would never abort a baby, but I believe in pro-choice. Some woman just know they dont want a baby, a friend of mine once said "I dont have to see a tumor to know I dont want it in me". Harsh comparison, but she had a point. Its your choice, not mine, goverment, or whack job religious nut to decide.

'Father' or not is irrelevant. What matters is liability for the cost of raising the child. Generally that falls to the two original participants, the mother and father. However in this case, both of those people vacacated that position. Not only that but entered into a contract and paid services to remove themselves from responsibility. That party failed to uphold their end and now has to pay the liability resulting from their incompetence.

As I said originally, I see nothing wrong with this decision.