Why do people quote biased sources about new laws rather than reading the bill themselves?

by **tripp** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:52 am

I just answered a question about the new wrongful life bill in AZ. The reader quoted the Huffington post which did not report the law fully and accurately and made it seem like a mean horrible law. It made it seem as though it was giving doctors the right to intentionally withhold information that they had.

However, if you read the actual bill, you will see that it states that the law is to prevent doctors from being sued if they didn't present information that they DON'T have. In other words, not every pregnancy is tested for every possible defect. There are medical guidelines about risk factors and what tests are considered prudent. So, the law states if the doctors follow prudent guidelines and fail to find a defect, they are protected. For example, Down's Syndrome has many tests of differing accuracy and invasiveness. Low risk pregnancies usually only have low invasive tests that are not as thorough. These tests will not catch every Down's Syndrome case and some low risk patients still can have a Down's Syndrome baby. The law is designed to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits when they provide the accepted standard of care.

Furthermore, you can always have additional tests performed that are beyond what is considered prudent care. For example women under 30 generally do not get amniocentesis to check for Down's Syndrome, but you can if you want. Part of this world requires you to know what you are doing and your rights.

This law is necessary due to runaway malpractice costs for OB-Gyns. More and more are leaving the profession or choosing another specialty due to malpractice insurance costs because patients will always blame and sue the doctor if there is a problem. Sometimes in life, things just aren't perfect an no one is to blame.

by **gwynethpaltrow8** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:02 am

It is easier to quote biased sources than actually search out and obtain the information yourself.

by **donough** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:10 am

cause people are lazy,

by **thom** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:13 am

Unless you are medical lawyer Why would i accept your take on it

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.”

so they can leave out facts? This law is designed to protect anti abortion doctors from fully explaining the high risk births

Advertisments:

Sponsor Links: