Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

  • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That should be the women’s choice to make though. She doesn’t want a baby, if she has an unexpected pregnancy she will abort, so she doesn’t need to take all that into account. She should get her treatment and a prior warning about pregnancy issues that could occur

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not how it would play out in a malpractice case.

      Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn’t cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.

      Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn’t want children.

      Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn’t want children, who later went on to have a child?

      Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.

      Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don’t want children?

      Doctor: …

      • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nice imaginary conversation, I’m sure you’re a totally qualified doctor and lawyer… just have the patient sign a liability waiver dude

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your link literally explains how to sue a doctor for malpractice after signing a liability waiver.

              No waiver can claim that patients cannot sue their doctors for gross incompetence.

              In most cases, this will involve collecting medical files, seeing copies of the waiver(s) signed by the patient, and proving medical malpractice or negligence by showing that:

              The doctor in question deviated from an acceptable standard of care

              The injuries came from that deviation

              The damages came from those injuries

              Which is straightforward in this case. The standard of care is not to give valproate to women of childbearing age except as a last resort, and valproate is known to have a very high risk of birth defects.

              • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This wouldn’t be gross incompetence, it is a standard treatment that comes with pregnancy risks that the patient can choose to take knowing that they aren’t going to give birth. All of those quotes youve selectively pulled are in reference to unexpected injury that isn’t outlined in the waiver, so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t apply in this case. Neither of us are lawyers though, I wonder if any lawyer fed heads could chime in

                • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The doctor prescribed a different medication for her. And doctors, not patients, ultimately get to decide which drug they prescribe.

                  I don’t think her case is going anywhere. She is suing pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case.

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a doctor spells out a risk to a patient and then still gives something that ends up causing harm, it is really a bit of a grey area. I don’t think that the doctor is entirely free of guilt in general. That being said, denying a medication without offering a proper substitute on this basis seems egregious. One can, under normal circumstances, control if they get pregnant or not.

      • tryptaminev@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not in this case though. Worst thing the doctor could ask for a confirmation that ge informed the patient about the associated risks. I’d imagine a conversation like this:

        “I inform you that this medication can cause severe birth defects in any baby in case you are pregnant. If you are pregnant you should not take this medication”

        “I am not pregnant and do not plan to get pregnant. If i should be pregnant without my knowledge i’ll not keep the baby.”

        “Given the strong risk associated with possible birth defects from this medication, could you please sign here, that i informed you about the risk?”

        • Kafkacious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          The moral grey area here is the person that ends up with birth defects I think. Not sure I agree with the policy, but remove it with a large enough population you will end up with some women ignoring advice and carrying to term.

          • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no person and would never be a person. In some other case, where the pregnancy is on the table, sure, maybe then we can talk about it. But this precrime bullshit is nothing more than just another strive to remove agency from women.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is no person and would never be a person

              Based on the full context, I’m actually on the woman’s side here. Even if I supported expanding fetal rights (I don’t), those rights should never start before conception.

              But this statement is not something we can know. I’ve known plenty of people who “aren’t pregnant and wouldn’t keep a baby if I were” that are now happy parents of that baby they wouldn’t keep. I’ve also known people who wanted children and then flipped a 180 and opted for abortion.