Failed Abortion Sparks Child Care Lawsuit

[shemp]

I don't suppose this poor kid will have some serious emotional baggage to deal with when she gets older and finds out the circumstances of her birth.

Mass. Doctors, Family Planning Organization Subjects Of Lawsuit After Abortion Seeker Gives Birth (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/07/national/main2542138.shtml)

(AP) A woman who had an abortion but still gave birth has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and a family planning organization seeking the costs of raising her child.

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons, The Boston Globe reported in its Wednesday editions.

[This Guy]

So...she was preggers in March of 2004, and brought the suit last week?

This the worlds longest pregnancy? ;)

So, per the link, in Sept. she found out she was still pregnant. She gave birth in Dec. Why?

I mean, she had 4 months or so to kill the baby while it was inside her (or have a Doc do it for her of course).

It appears she had no qualms about ending it's life, so why not try a second abortion?

I don't understand.

But I too wonder how the child will be when she learns Mommy Dearest tried to make her dead.

And what the H did those Doctors get out of her, if it wasn't the baby? :eek:

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Man, as happy as that kid is that her abortion was botched, that woman should get recompensated. It's their fault she has a 2-year-old kid on her hands after getting an abortion.

[ponderingturtle]

Man, as happy as that kid is that her abortion was botched, that woman should get recompensated. It's their fault she has a 2-year-old kid on her hands after getting an abortion.

So any unsuccessful medical procedure should result in a lawsuit?

[Fnord]

My parents "had to get married" because they conceived me. I always thought that when my uncle called me "That little b@st@rd" it was just his way of showing affection, until an aunt told me the details about the circumstances of my birth.

But hey, I grew up to be ferpectly norble...:boxedin:

[toddjh]

So any unsuccessful medical procedure should result in a lawsuit?

If the doctors didn't take reasonable steps to make sure it was successful, sure. I'm no expert, but my gut feeling is that they must've been doing a pretty half-assed job if they didn't know the abortion had failed. Anybody with more experience want to weigh in?

[Darth Rotor]

So any unsuccessful medical procedure should result in a lawsuit?
That appears to be the trend. I hear ambulance chasers make quite the living off of that idea.

DR

[quixotecoyote]

Everyone's got baggage. I doubt this particular piece of baggage would turn out to be too damaging, but the mother seems to be loony enough to be able to pile some more on.

[Roswell-Perseis]

Why didn't the first or second doctor detect the pregnancy?

Why didn't the woman give the child up for adoption? She would not be able to get an abortion at six to seven months (give or take). She probably wouldn't get a second term abortion, but she was never forced to keep the baby. She has no business suing for costs that she incurred. However, if she wanted the doctor to pay for an adoption lawyer (at the time of delivery) perhaps everyone would be better off.

[skeptifem]

what an unfortunate last name.

I suppose the kid will deal with it the same way countless unwanted children do, which is to say, all of the above. I didnt vote, because I dont see how this is any different than pro life neglectful parents have children they dont want or kids being put up for adoption. Plenty of children unfortunatley know they werent wanted or planned.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yes, in this particular case, it should.

Consider
- how do these doctors get an abortion wrong?! I understand, lets say, misdiagnosing a rare disease due to complicated tests but a procedure to remove a fetus during which they didn't remove the fetus and still thought they did the job?! What did they take out of her if it wasn't the kid?!
-none of her doctors realized she was still pregnant afterwards. Again, how bad at your job are you?!
-because of them she was forced to give birth against her will and was saddled with a child she can't afford
-when men cause pregnancies we make them pay child support to recompensate the mother. Why not do the same for doctors who in effect caused a pregnancy?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, in this particular case, it should.

Consider
- how do these doctors get an abortion wrong?! I understand, lets say, misdiagnosing a rare disease due to complicated tests but a procedure to remove a fetus during which they didn't remove the fetus and still thought they did the job?! What did they take out of her if it wasn't the kid?!

So missing something the size of a pea is a major mistake?

-none of her doctors realized she was still pregnant afterwards. Again, how bad at your job are you?!

Evidence that she even saw a doctor afterwards? If she did not go for follow ups who's fault is it then?

-because of them she was forced to give birth against her will and was saddled with a child she can't afford
And she can't put it up for adoption because?

-when men cause pregnancies we make them pay child support to recompensate the mother. Why not do the same for doctors who in effect caused a pregnancy?

So if you get a side effect of treatment that occurs ? I can't find a good source but it seems like it is somewhere in the .8-2% range where an abortion will be unsuccessful.

[Fnord]

Plenty of children unfortunately know they weren't wanted or planned.

Yeah, but we grow up anyway ... a few issues with trust and affection, that's all ... "Cold and Distant" ... ferpectly norbal.

[ponderingturtle]

I think people are confusing intended and wanted. Why does unplanned mean unwanted?

It just reminds me of a time in college when a friend(freshman at the time) announced to a group that his girlfriend was pregnant. No one knew how to respond, but he was happy with it.

So that was unplanned but why would that seem to be more problematic than other starts?

[Fnord]

I think people are confusing intended and wanted. Why does unplanned mean unwanted?

I do not know the statistics, or even if such statistics are counted, but "unwanted" seems to follow "unplanned" more often than "planned," and "wanted" seems to follow "planned" more often than "unplanned," IMHO. I have no idea why this could be so.

I'm basing this on having been a child that was both unplanned and unwanted (by at least one parent), and the impressions I received from others in similar situations.

Again, this is only an opinion based on personal experience and subjective impressions.

[skeptifem]

I think people are confusing intended and wanted. Why does unplanned mean unwanted?

It just reminds me of a time in college when a friend(freshman at the time) announced to a group that his girlfriend was pregnant. No one knew how to respond, but he was happy with it.

So that was unplanned but why would that seem to be more problematic than other starts?

unplanned children arent neccesarily unwanted, but unwanted kids are also usually unplanned. so i think thats why the two terms are being used together.

[Tmy]

You cant have a "wrongful life" suit.

She couldve given the kid up for adpotion.

[Luke T.]

I think people are confusing intended and wanted. Why does unplanned mean unwanted?

It just reminds me of a time in college when a friend(freshman at the time) announced to a group that his girlfriend was pregnant. No one knew how to respond, but he was happy with it.

So that was unplanned but why would that seem to be more problematic than other starts?

I'd say the attempted abortion places this kid in the Unwanted category, but that's just me...

[Luke T.]

Evidence that she even saw a doctor afterwards?

Um. The link in the OP?

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

That's why she is suing two doctors.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

The CBS article mentions she went for a follow up and the doc didn't realize she was still pregnant.

Side effects are a totally different story than human error. People are informed that all drugs have side effects and they decide to take that risk cause the cure is more important. You can't compare a major screwup to a side effect. A doctor can't be blamed for cough medicine making you high. They can be blamed for not knowing what they're doing.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can miss a fetus even by accident. Most of the contents of a uterus are taken out in an abortion, umblicial cord, afterbirth, everything. How do you miss THAT?! They didn't even cause her any complications or damage to the child! What did they do? Poke a knife in and take it out?!

Maybe she would have given the child up for adoption if foster homes were in a better shape in America.

These doctors better be paying for this kid's way, just like an absent father. I'm talking about her Powerpuff girl stickers to her college tuition.

[GodMark2]

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

That's why she is suing two doctors.

Both of those statements only say "...according to the complaint" and "...the lawsuit alleges". We're only hearing what she's accusing the doctors of. There isn't any evidence presented in thise statements. I can accuse someone of anything, that doesn't mean that the event actually happened.

[ponderingturtle]

I'd say the attempted abortion places this kid in the Unwanted category, but that's just me...

Unwanted then, but mabey I am being foolish in thinking that it is not an absolute indicator in how the child will be raised.

[ponderingturtle]

The CBS article mentions she went for a follow up and the doc didn't realize she was still pregnant.

Side effects are a totally different story than human error. People are informed that all drugs have side effects and they decide to take that risk cause the cure is more important. You can't compare a major screwup to a side effect. A doctor can't be blamed for cough medicine making you high. They can be blamed for not knowing what they're doing.

Got it, doctors are perfect and must be punished for any and all inperfections. Miss diagnosing something, sue of course it is the only solution.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can miss a fetus even by accident. Most of the contents of a uterus are taken out in an abortion, umblicial cord, afterbirth, everything. How do you miss THAT?! They didn't even cause her any complications or damage to the child! What did they do? Poke a knife in and take it out?!

Maybe she would have given the child up for adoption if foster homes were in a better shape in America.

Why would the child be in the foster system? Why not go with a adoption agency for people looking for a baby?

These doctors better be paying for this kid's way, just like an absent father. I'm talking about her Powerpuff girl stickers to her college tuition.

When ever you have some problem sue your doctors they deserve it.

[Merko]

I've no idea whether my parents planned or wanted me at the time. They certainly weren't married and considering what they did for the first few months even after my birth, I kind of doubt I was planned. Though I really couldn't care less. I happened, and they took great care of me.

I guess people who feel that they were not treated well by their parents might place an unwarranted importance to the question of whether they were planned/wanted or not, because that is a relatively simple either/or choice with a more or less clear answer, while what actually matters is much more fuzzy to define.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If you ended up with a kid you didn't want and couldn't afford for life because of someone's mistake that you paid them good money to make, you'd be singing a different story.

She shouldn't sue- they should have a recompensation policy and give her the money without her even having to ask.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Bleh, singing a different tune.

[ponderingturtle]

If you ended up with a kid you didn't want and couldn't afford for life because of someone's mistake that you paid them good money to make, you'd be singing a different story.

She shouldn't sue- they should have a recompensation policy and give her the money without her even having to ask.

So, we need to raise the rates in accordance with that to pay for all such occurances. As the odds of each event would seem to be in the few percent range and say the 250,000 pay out, then you will raise the cost of each abortion by at least $25, probably more like $100 to be on the safe side.

Also this "If you ended up with a kid you didn't want and couldn't afford for life because of someone's mistake" fits into a situation lots of men find themselves in every day.

[ceo_esq]

This controversy reminds me of an old legal case studied by every first-year law student in the United States, in which a plaintiff who had undergone a vasectomy that somehow turned out (surprise, daddy!) to be unsuccessful then sued the physician for damages corresponding to the cost of raising the resulting baby to adulthood. From the court's opinion in Shaheen v. Knight, 11 D & C2d 41 (Pa. 1957):

Defendant argues, however; and pleads, that plaintiff has suffered no damage. We agree with defendant. The only damages asked are the expenses of rearing and educating the unwanted child. We are of the opinion that to allow damages for the normal birth of a normal child is foreign to the universal public sentiment of the people.

...

As Chief Justice Gibson said in Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332: "The great end of matrimony is not the comfort and convenience of the immediate parties, though these are necessarily embarked in it; but the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father; and the reciprocal taking for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish till death, are important, but only modal conditions of the contract, and no more than ancillary to the principal purpose of it. The civil rights created by them may be forfeited by the misconduct of either party; but though the forfeiture can be incurred, so far as the parties themselves are concerned, only by a responsible agent, it follows not that those rights must not give way without it to public policy, and the paramount purposes of the marriage - the procreation and protection of legitimate children, the institution of families, and the creation of natural relations among mankind; from which proceed all the civilization, virtue, and happiness to be found in the world."

To allow damages in a suit such as this would mean that the physician would have to pay for the fun, joy and affection which plaintiff Shaheen will have in the rearing and educating of this, defendant's fifth child. Many people would be willing to support this child were they given the right of custody and adoption, but according to plaintiff's statement, plaintiff does not want such. He wants to have the child and wants the doctor to support it. In our opinion to allow such damages would be against public policy.

[ponderingturtle]

This controversy reminds me of an old legal case studied by every first-year law student in the United States, in which a plaintiff who had undergone a vasectomy that somehow turned out (surprise, daddy!) to be unsuccessful then sued the physician for damages corresponding to the cost of raising the resulting baby to adulthood. From the court's opinion in Shaheen v. Knight, 11 D & C2d 41 (Pa. 1957):

Quite apt as there is a high failure rate in vasectomies.

[ceo_esq]

Quite apt as there is a high failure rate in vasectomies.

More relevant than the relative failure rate of the two procedures, I think, is the question of whether it is in the public interest to consider the normal birth of a normal child a compensable "injury" to its parents.

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps she had twins, and the doctors only got one of them?

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps the child has a legal claim to damages as well. If the woman thought she wasn't pregnant, and went on drinking and dyeing her hair and all the other stuff you're not supposed to do when pregnant, it could hurt the child. It might not be a case of "normal child" now.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No it doesn't. Unless, in some Jerry Springer scenario, a man was raped by a woman or she tricked him into causing a pregnancy, that's your mistake for not shelling out 99 cents for a condom.

[ponderingturtle]

No it doesn't. Unless, in some Jerry Springer scenario, a man was raped by a woman or she tricked him into causing a pregnancy, that's your mistake for not shelling out 99 cents for a condom.

It is also his fault if it breaks, she messes up taking her pill or what have you.

So attempting birth control and failing does not remove his legal responcibility but it does for a woman who tries to get an abortion and it fails?