Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
But a wrongful death suit, give me a break. While there may be a discussion that reasonable people might have of abortion, this really shows what the agenda is.
But a wrongful death suit, give me a break. While there may be a discussion that reasonable people might have of abortion, this really shows what the agenda is.
I'm against abortion but only in this country and based solely on economic reasons. Children cost alot to raise and that is money being spent in the economy.
Other than that, I could care less if a woman want's to blend up her baby into a fetus puree and have it sucked out with a vacuum tube. That's something she has to live with for the rest of her life.
As for this specifically, I would expect this to get settled out of court. And thusly being a complete non-issue in terms of intent and enforcement of the wrongful death fetus law.
Aside from impact on abortion issues, what the heck is the couple supposed to do? They used the clinic in good faith to help them have a child, and the clinic destroyed that chance 'on accident'...I say make them pay through the nose
__________________
Veni, vidi, vici--this goes out to all our NFC West chums
Thank you for breaking the circle of suck, Bidwill--Stout, December 7 2008.
I'm pro-life personally but don't knock those who think differently, but one question I've never been able to get my mind around is this: if it's a crime intentionally to cause the death of of a fetus and a tort to do so negligently, the fetus has a right to life under the law--and if that's so, why should a mother's right to privacy (which is what Roe was based on) trump her fetus' right to live? Choice advocates (including certain Supreme Court Justices) generally ignore the question, although I've heard a few women say it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a human being.
What you have here is a malpractice case that was then taken to another level with the "wrongful death" angle. I don't think it's any big secret agenda about abortion rights. Pro Life has been about as vocal and transparent as a movement can be.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
What you have here is a malpractice case that was then taken to another level with the "wrongful death" angle. I don't think it's any big secret agenda about abortion rights. Pro Life has been about as vocal and transparent as a movement can be.
It's not a medical malpractice case. There was no medicine being practiced in the storage and maintenance of the embryos (as I understand those clinics to operate).
This is what will cause a stir among NOW and some choice advocates:
In an opinion issued Friday, Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb."
That's the incongruency I was referring to--how can a pre-embryo be a human being as a matter of law, but whether the destruction of that human being is manslaughter depend on who's doing the destroying? For example, if the embryo was implanted and the mother aborted it later, that's legal; but if it was not negligently but intentionally destroyed by somebody at the clinic, would it not be murder under the Judge's conception of what a pre-embryo is?
it comes down to the intent of the would be mother - if she wanted an embryo so as to eventually have a baby, it is negligence.
If something slips up and my girl gets an UNWANTED pregnancy, it's her right to terminate it.
Won't that soul get recycled anyway? Or go straight to heaven?
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
It's not a medical malpractice case. There was no medicine being practiced in the storage and maintenance of the embryos (as I understand those clinics to operate).
I have no problem with the lawsuit.
But, this clearly could've been pressed as a malpractice suit had they chosen to do so. Let's say they wanted a heart transplant instead. They take hearts out of the deceased, pack em up in cold packs and carry them in coolers to where the patient is waiting. Certainly, that is only "storage and maintenance". Let's say the transporter decides he wants to take a peek at the heart, opens the case, stumbles, and the heart flops over to a dog who chews on it before it can be stopped. That wouldn't be malpractice? It surely would be. The hospital/clinic would be sued through the schnozz and rightfully so. Just because there was a delay between the fertilization and implantation does not mean the clinic absolved from responsibility. They have to make sure proper care procedures for the embryo are in place and followed. Even if they hired another company to do it, they are responsible for that hire, although their liability would be less.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
It's the 'Wrongful Death' angle that I can't take.
Sue them, sure but this seems to be about pushing the pro life angle further up the chain of events. If they win this it sets a legal precedent which I suspect is the goal.
But, this clearly could've been pressed as a malpractice suit had they chosen to do so. Let's say they wanted a heart transplant instead. They take hearts out of the deceased, pack em up in cold packs and carry them in coolers to where the patient is waiting. Certainly, that is only "storage and maintenance". Let's say the transporter decides he wants to take a peek at the heart, opens the case, stumbles, and the heart flops over to a dog who chews on it before it can be stopped. That wouldn't be malpractice? It surely would be. The hospital/clinic would be sued through the schnozz and rightfully so. Just because there was a delay between the fertilization and implantation does not mean the clinic absolved from responsibility. They have to make sure proper care procedures for the embryo are in place and followed. Even if they hired another company to do it, they are responsible for that hire, although their liability would be less.
Not to be a jerk, but your example wouldn't be malpractice, it'd be a straight negligent wrongful death case (though a tough one to prove, if you're depending on a heart transplant to survive). I'm a lawyer and I've done a fair amount of medical malpractice work. If you're admitted to a hospital and faulty wiring causes a fire that injures you, you may have a claim for negligence; if your doctor gives you a vasectomy instead of taking out your appendix, that's medical malpractice. Courts consider whether medicine was being practiced when the wrongful act was committed, and preserving embryos and transporting organs don't involve the practice of medicine (especially when you're a plaintiffs' attorney, and court rules and state statutes generally make medical malpractice cases more difficult and less profitable to litigate than negligence cases).
Not to be a jerk, but your example wouldn't be malpractice, it'd be a straight negligent wrongful death case (though a tough one to prove, if you're depending on a heart transplant to survive). I'm a lawyer and I've done a fair amount of medical malpractice work. If you're admitted to a hospital and faulty wiring causes a fire that injures you, you may have a claim for negligence; if your doctor gives you a vasectomy instead of taking out your appendix, that's medical malpractice. Courts consider whether medicine was being practiced when the wrongful act was committed, and preserving embryos and transporting organs don't involve the practice of medicine (especially when you're a plaintiffs' attorney, and court rules and state statutes generally make medical malpractice cases more difficult and less profitable to litigate than negligence cases).
Okay, if you say so, it's fine with me!
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
It's the 'Wrongful Death' angle that I can't take.
Sue them, sure but this seems to be about pushing the pro life angle further up the chain of events. If they win this it sets a legal precedent which I suspect is the goal.
This from the article linked in your thread starting post:
In his ruling, Lawrence relied on the state's Wrongful Death Act, which allows lawsuits to be filed if unborn fetuses are killed in an accident or assault. "The state of gestation or development of a human being" does not preclude taking legal action, the act says.
Lawrence also cited an Illinois state law that says an "unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person."
"There is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois Legislature when life begins," Lawrence wrote.
Apparently, the precedent is already established by law.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Lawrence also cited an Illinois state law that says an "unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person."
"There is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois Legislature when life begins," Lawrence wrote.[/indent]
Apparently, the precedent is already established by law.
Does this mean we get to try abortion doctors as mass murderers and in the supreme irony of it all, sentence them to death?
Whether or not an undeveloped fetus is a life, according to the law, IMO, is inconsequential in determining abortion rights. A fetus is a parasite -- it needs the mother to survive. Therefore, the mother should have the say on abortion. It is not the same thing as intentionally harming a fetus that is in another's body without her permission. That fetus is not dependent upon the person harming it.
Linear Mode
