Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 12/10/2001 11:16:47 AM EST
Yes indeed...if you have Down Syndrom, you can file suit against the doctors that delivered you for not aborting you. [url]www.csmonitor.com/2001/1207/p1s3-woeu.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:18:47 AM EST
I wonder if it would be permissible for the doctors to simply right the situation in lieu of payment?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:23:29 AM EST
It's official. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. And just when I thought I couldn't see anything dumber.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:28:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I wonder if it would be permissible for the doctors to simply right the situation in lieu of payment?
View Quote
That would be interesting. If the plaintiff does not want to be alive (or should never have been born), then this should be a valid and legal alternative.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:40:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I wonder if it would be permissible for the doctors to simply right the situation in lieu of payment?
View Quote
Lets hope so, and lets hope the whole French population files suit.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:42:42 AM EST
So people can sue French doctors for *not* killing them? I want to sue them for not killing me! Oh, nevermind; that's retarded. --------- "The French, they are a funny race..."
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:44:10 AM EST
France....what happens when a massive abortion goes horribly worng..... [}:D] Hey, I think I may make that my new sig line!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:49:43 AM EST
I wish the French lived in Israel so there would be no doubt as to our 'WORST' ally.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:54:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 12:16:46 PM EST by The_Macallan]
First it was the "[b]The Swedish Lesbians vs. The Sperm Donor[/b]" and now "[b]Revenge of the French NonAborted Fetus[/b]". Are these actual lawsuits or just bad European movie titles? [:)] I said it once and I'll say it again... Those Europeans, they're so progressive. Why can't we troglodytic Americans be more enlightened like them? [:D]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 12:51:25 PM EST
There's a little more to the story: "In their Nov. 28 ruling, three judges said that a doctor had negligently failed to warn an expectant mother that pre-natal scans showed that her baby had the symptoms of Down syndrome. The baby, who was only identified as Lionel, was born in 1995. His mother argued that she would have aborted if she had been given a correct pre-natal diagnosis." Seems the Doc didn't fill her in.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:01:54 PM EST
Hell has been described as place where the politicians are French, the police are German, and the cooks are British. I'm sure there's more. Need more info. about Hell? Wanna sell YOUR soul? Looking for Satan's resume? [url]http://www.sff.net/people/pitman/hell.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 12:02:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 1:00:33 AM EST
NOW, I really have seen it all. How can Human beings qualify for being both the most intelligent, and yet the stupidest, creatures on this planet? Tyler
Link Posted: 12/11/2001 3:19:55 AM EST
I wonder if the liberals of the world would have been such enthusiastic supporters of "choice" if they'd known how genetic testing would allow parents to make their choices. A previous controversy: "Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner" [url]http://www.galwayforlife.ie/gay.html[/url] ----- Speaking from his home in Long Island, New York, Dr Watson recalled a discussion he had had about the genetic implications of homosexuality in front of a woman whose son was gay. He said: "Looking at the situation from her point of view, it was that she wanted grandchildren. Her son's homosexuality was the great tragedy of her life. And who am I to say otherwise?" Although American scientists claimed in 1993 that they had identified a link between homosexuality and genetic make-up, it remains unproven and controversial. At that time the former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, was criticised when he said that if the techniques became available, then scientists should help eradicate the "abnormality of homosexuality". Dr Watson, however, admits that it is not even known how normal sexuality is determined. "But while I think in the end we will, that doesn't mean that the majority of homosexuality has a genetic basis, just that genetics will help us understand." Although Dr Watson claims that these issues should be left to the individual, he also states that parents have a moral responsibility to make sure their babies are born as healthy as possible. "We already accept that most couples don't want a Down's child. You would have to be crazy to say you wanted one, because that child has no future," he said. -----
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 2:59:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 3:42:50 AM EST
Downs Syndrome fer chrissakes! Mild to moderate mental retardation, and possible some physical problems.
View Quote
One of the physical problems is that men with Down syndrome tend to be sterile and women with Down syndrome who give birth have a 50% chance of having a child with Down syndrome. Given those numbers, it's understandable why parents who aspire to be grandparents would have difficulty accepting a Down syndrome baby.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 3:53:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: That person is still able to make a productive contribution to society, and has the capability of making certain choices.
View Quote
What productive contribution? Greeter at Walmart, we already have elderly people for that position. A person with Downs is not going to be a doctor, or a scientist, or anything that requires vast amounts of intellect. My wife and I just had our second daughter a week ago, and if we had known it was a downs baby there would have been some serious problems at our house. She would have wanted to keep it I absolutely would not. If you can prevent bringing a child into the world with such a condition why would you bring it into the world knowing it will be shunned and not be able to live a quality life? [beer]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 3:59:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: If you can prevent bringing a child into the world with such a condition why would you bring it into the world knowing it will be shunned and not be able to live a quality life?
View Quote
Roughly akin ideologically to Hitler's feelings for those with the "Jewish" birth defect.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:08:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 4:01:33 AM EST by Golgo-13]
Too many people have perceptions of handicapped and retarded people that are shaped by TV portrayals of them as loving, gentle, and saintly. I'm here to tell you it isn't so. As a teacher, thanks to "mainstreaming" and "inclusion", I have retarded teenagers in my classroom who would have been in a closed special education environment when I first started teaching. For every one of the gentle, loving, saintly ones I estimate I have 2 that are loud, aggressive, and disruptive. Also, working for the Sheriff's Office has given me the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time in the company of prisoners. Seems there are a lot of really low IQ's in jail cells i.e. retarded people commit crimes. Oh yeah, talk to a physical therapist sometime about how nasty and bitter the physically handicapped can be. Some of you guys apparently watch too much Lifetime Network. Does this mean that a foetus identified as handicapped should be aborted? I don't know. I would say that if the parents do that, then they should also have themselves sterilized so that it doesn't happen again.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:34:34 AM EST
This desire to control the mix of the human race is very troubling. Some of you should read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:42:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:46:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:56:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:50:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: If you can prevent bringing a child into the world with such a condition why would you bring it into the world knowing it will be shunned and not be able to live a quality life?
View Quote
Roughly akin ideologically to Hitler's feelings for those with the "Jewish" birth defect.
View Quote
Not even close to the same because Jewish people are not mentally or physically disabled just because of the fact they are Jewish. This is the same type of argument as pertains to abortion in general. Why is it not a parents right to choose, especially if they know something is wrong with the pregnancy. Why is that a bad argument?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:55:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: Again, how can you make that choice for another person?
View Quote
How can a group of cellular mass be considered a person? By your same train of thought you would be adamantly against stem cell research. I do not have a problem with stem cell research and if it finds new cures that make mankind as a whole live healthier and potentially longer lives why not? [beer]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:07:40 AM EST
How can a group of cellular mass be considered a person?
View Quote
Because we're [b]all[/b] masses of cells? [;)]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:15:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 8:14:15 AM EST by garandman]
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: Not even close to the same because Jewish people are not mentally or physically disabled just because of the fact they are Jewish.
View Quote
Actually, the "genetic defect " of being Jewish was Hitler's whole theory as to why he wished to exterminate Jews. He equated being Jewiwh with being mentally and physically disabled. He considered the whole race mentally unsound, a Downs Syndrome race, if you will. Genetically, they were fundamentally deifcient, would disturb the gene pool, and therefore the "sensible" thing to do was to kill them. (Hitler's words, NOT mine) In fact, they performed experiements on Jewish children, to see if the "Jewishness" could be unlearned. The experiemtns ultimately failed and the children, well....disappeared. (The location, author and name of the study escapes me for the moment, but it was on the History Channel.) Beyond that, if memory serves, Hitler also exterminated non-Jews who were handicapped, as we would define it today.
This is the same type of argument as pertains to abortion in general. Why is it not a parents right to choose, especially if they know something is wrong with the pregnancy. Why is that a bad argument?
View Quote
Because there is a third party involved, that has a soul. Downs syndrome children are not a rodent we can squash, and then wipe off our shoe. Beyond all the logical reasons your initial propossal is hideous are the emotional ones.. Your proposal would have robbed my dad of a brother, and me of an uncle. NO WAY that is right. NO WAY.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:35:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 8:28:06 AM EST by gunman0]
My friend has a retarded brother. He says only a few words, and crawls around in diapers. He plays with babies toys and requires 24/7 care. Oh, by the way, he is 21 years old. He will be like this for the rest of his life. When his parents die, my friend will have to care for him. That situation is bad enough, the child will be a burden on his family forever. He won't be able to live a life that even comes close to normal, happy, or productive. Now, what is even worse?? What if my friend dies? Then what happens to his retarded brother? Locked up in an institution strapped in bed with human contact only a couple times a day to change his diapers? The doctor withheld information causing both the child and parents/family to have a permanent financial and emotional burden. If the parents lose their job or die, then the retarded child will spend out the rest of his life locked up in a government institution. If the doctor informed the parents, and they still chose to have the baby, then there would be no problem. The parents are accepting the financial, emotional, and other risks associated with a retarded child. If they chose to abort, I would understand. Edited due to poor spelling.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:45:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 8:45:07 AM EST by stratsandaks]
I say we take this one step further and abort those who show signs of the dreaded lawer or politician gene. There is a huge difference between someone who is a burden to society because of a birth defect, than someone who burdens all of society for their own personal gain.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:03:21 AM EST
My Brother was born handicapped. He cannot talk, only has use of one side of his body, and could never do the stuff the rest of us do everyday. But, he is by no means the violent person that some of the idiots here have suggested. My parent love him and they wouldn't have considered aborting him. He nearly died several times, and is only alive becuase he was rushed to the Hospital. One of those was the day he was born. He came out quasi-stillborn. He wasn't breathing and his face was blue from lack of oxygen to the brain. He was revived and my parents do not regret that he is this way, they are simply glad to have him. I was their second child and I came out fine. So, no they should not be sterilized.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:34:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By cc48510: My Brother was born handicapped. He cannot talk, only has use of one side of his body, and could never do the stuff the rest of us do everyday. But, he is by no means the violent person that some of the idiots here have suggested. My parent love him and they wouldn't have considered aborting him. He nearly died several times, and is only alive becuase he was rushed to the Hospital. One of those was the day he was born. He came out quasi-stillborn. He wasn't breathing and his face was blue from lack of oxygen to the brain. He was revived and my parents do not regret that he is this way, they are simply glad to have him. I was their second child and I came out fine. So, no they should not be sterilized.
View Quote
Good for your family. You have experience with this one person. I have experience with dozens, perhaps hundreds. Now go back and re-read my post. I said [b]if[/b] a couple elected to abort a foetus because of defects [b]then[/b] they should also have themselves sterilized. Your parents elected to have your brother, so what I said in no way applies to them.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:42:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By gunman0: The doctor withheld information causing both the child and parents/family to have a permanent financial and emotional burden. If the parents lose their job or die, then the retarded child will spend out the rest of his life locked up in a government institution. Edited due to poor spelling.
View Quote
Now take a second pass and edit out the poor thinking. [}:D] EVERY child is a financial and emotional burden - even the physically and mentally perfect ones. Everyone who thinks abortion for any reason is OK - I say we start with them. You can invent all sorts of justifications for killing off a child. Sixty years ago, it was race. Sixty years from now, it'll probably be ideology. (E.g. All conservatives are CLEALRY insane, don't allow them to reproduce, and emotionally abuse their children into beleiving the conservative lies) [rolleyes] gunman0- Please abort yourself, so that YOU will no longer cause ANYONE a "financial and emotional burden." [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 12:08:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 1:21:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 1:41:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 3:31:10 AM EST
However, the oath of Do No Harm presents an interesting question. Does the oath mean that there is a responsibility to preserve the life of the patient (handicapped child), or that there is a responsibility to terminate that life to prevent suffering that is forseen?
View Quote
First of all, the question of whether or not to abort would rest primarily with the parents. If the doctor who detects the Down syndrome doesn't want to kill the fetus, the parents can always go to another doctor. And if the doctor does want to kill the fetus but the parents disagree, he's out of luck. (Although I suppose it's not too far-fetched to imagine a society in which the state has decided that the "right to choose" is too important to be left to mere parents. [rolleyes] Authority and responsibility go together and American society has already granted the state broad responsibilities for child welfare.) Secondly, though, the key word in "do no harm" is "[b]do[/b]". Doctors are responsible for the consequences of their actions, but they can't assume total responsibility for the health and welfare of their patients.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 6:19:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 6:27:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 6:46:51 PM EST
I think medical research which is conducted on human subjects is a great idea, just like Dr. Mengele. As I recall, the Hitler Channel mentioned that the whole world learned a lot about the structure and workings of the human body by dissecting and "testing to destruction" Jews, gypsies, Russian prisoners and other *subhumans*. Remember the scandal of the anatomy charts which had an artist's signature, along with the initials SS next to them. He drew his impressive scientific illustrations by watching vivisections of Jews performed by Nazi doctors. Today, we have a golden opportunity to experiment on another class of subhumans, the unborn. "But it is a person, how can you do that?!" Relax, citizen. It will be designated a subhuman by a panel of Democrats; and think of the rapid medical gains(profits) to be had! Human rights? Aren't you listening, I called that dissection victim a "subhuman." During one of the Nazi experiments, a couple of Russian POWs were placed in a tub full of ice water, to gain data on the stages of freezing to death. When the "winterized" Russians failed to freeze to death in a reasonable amount of time, one of them said to the other, "Comrade, ask that dog of a German to shoot us." Why don't we get informed, voluntary consent before we experiment on people? Because it would slow up our lucrative murder machine. --------- Fuck all the Nazi death-camp doctors, of whatever era or country.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 4:17:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern:
Originally Posted By Renamed: First of all, the question of whether or not to abort would rest primarily with the parents. If the doctor who detects the Down syndrome doesn't want to kill the fetus, the parents can always go to another doctor. And if the doctor does want to kill the fetus but the parents disagree, he's out of luck. (Although I suppose it's not too far-fetched to imagine a society in which the state has decided that the "right to choose" is too important to be left to mere parents. [rolleyes] Authority and responsibility go together and American society has already granted the state broad responsibilities for child welfare.) Secondly, though, the key word in "do no harm" is "[b]do[/b]". Doctors are responsible for the consequences of their actions, but they can't assume total responsibility for the health and welfare of their patients.
View Quote
Contrast with this excerpt from the article: [b]Last week France's highest appeals court ruled that children with Down syndrome have a legal right never to have been born and could sue doctors that attended the pregnancy.[/b] Kind of a contradiction, no?
View Quote
I think the reasoning of the French court is that the doctor in this particular case was negligent by failing to inform the mother of the signs of Down syndrome. The court isn't saying that he was obligated to kill the child, but that he should have given the mother the information needed to make an informed decision. By the way, this brings up another scenario: Could a paralyzed accident survivor sue the doctors who saved his life?
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 4:46:03 AM EST
Top Top