Texas introduces lie-to-patient bill.

Revoltingest said:

If accurately presented, the bill sounds horrible.

Click to expand...

From my reading of it, the bill does not "make it ok to lie," per se -- but does seem it could produce some of that effect.

It appears intended to protect doctors from liability regarding babies with disabilities being born. It prohibits a cause of action based upon a claim that a person living now would not have been allowed to be born, except for the act or omission of another. (edit: To clarify, it would not apply to person living today, but only after taking effect -- it would apply to a suit involving a person already born.)

Here's the text: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00025I.pdf#navpanes=0

SomeRandom said:

Even if they do, withholding such information does not benefit the fetus' future. It may harm it so either way it would against the oath.

Click to expand...

If a doc is a pro-lifer, any future for the fetus could be better than abortion.
There are a diversity of beliefs out there in the doctor world....& each gets
to impose personal belief upon the patient. This is wrongo pongo.

How does this fit in with the American Ideals of freedom.

Valjean said:

Saw this in the paper, today. Apparently another roundabout mechanism to prevent abortions.
Texas Lawmakers Advance Bill That Would Allow Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Women

This has worrisome implications.
Opinions?

Click to expand...

For the most part, I think the article misrepresents what the bill actually addresses, and what it does not. I'm linking to the text again, for ease: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00025I.pdf#navpanes=0

It only addresses "wrongful birth" as a cause of action.

It could have the effect of some doctors lying, based upon their own beliefs, but it does not allow it, justify it, or address lying in any way. This, I see as a potential negative effect -- but hardly the intent of the legislation, as seems to be asserted by the writer of the article. (I wonder if that person actually read the legislation before writing about it.)

It does not change any medical standards, practices, nor protect the doctor from medical malpractice claims.

A positive potential I see is it may protect doctors who, through good faith, simply fail to identify a birth defect, then after a child is born, find themselves having to defend against/being held legally liable if the parents later determine they would have aborted if they had known -- so some test that might have identified it should have been done.

After looking into it further, it seems that in some cases wrongful birth claims are presented against doctors with the assertion the doctor should have diagnosed a probability of conceiving a child with a birth defect -- and counseled against conceiving -- and that the failure to consult against conceiving in the first place is what is asserted as negligence.

Yes, I am linking to Wikipedia: Wrongful birth - Wikipedia

Quintessence said:

Well, if the bill passes, we can rest assured that word will get around which doctors routinely lie to their patients. Those doctors will lose a pretty significant cut of their business, I imagine. Hopefully so much so that hospitals will consider having them on staff to be a financial waste and fire them.

Click to expand...

I wonder what the experience is in the states that already have such a law on their books.

Not sure how current this is, but this law firm's site says 12 states already have laws prohibiting wrongful birth suits. (It appears this was written in 2012.) It seems Texas is not a front runner on the issue:

"Currently, twenty-eight states recognize wrongful birth claims, and twelve states specifically prohibit them. The states that prohibit wrongful birth are Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. The Supreme Court of Utah ruled that its law banning wrongful birth lawsuits was constitutional."

Wrongful Birth | Gaar Law Firm | Lafayette Louisiana

4consideration said:

For the most part, I think the article misrepresents what the bill actually addresses, and what it does not. I'm linking to the text again, for ease: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00025I.pdf#navpanes=0

It only addresses "wrongful birth" as a cause of action.

It could have the effect of some doctors lying, based upon their own beliefs, but it does not allow it, justify it, or address lying in any way. This, I see as a potential negative effect -- but hardly the intent of the legislation, as seems to be asserted by the writer of the article. (I wonder if that person actually read the legislation before writing about it.)

It does not change any medical standards, practices, nor protect the doctor from medical malpractice claims.

A positive potential I see is it may protect doctors who, through good faith, simply fail to identify a birth defect, then after a child is born, find themselves having to defend against/being held legally liable if the parents later determine they would have aborted if they had known -- so some test that might have identified it should have been done.

​

Click to expand...

What is your opinion of shielding the doc from misfeasance in a wrongful birth case?
(I'm too lazy & distracted to read the bill. So I depend upon you.)

Revoltingest said:

What is your opinion of shielding the doc from misfeasance in a wrongful birth case?
(I'm too lazy & distracted to read the bill. So I depend upon you.)

Click to expand...

(I'm still thinking about what I think about the legislation, so some of this is thinking aloud.)

As of this time, I'm not seeing it as necessarily shielding the doc from anything directly related to his/her behavior. It is merely the specific cause of action that is being disallowed.

It seems to be protecting a living person from being the subject of a lawsuit based upon the fact the person was allowed to be born alive, and not aborted -- as though that person would have been aborted, without question -- except for the actions or omissions of another.

If the doctor actually deviated from professional standards, including lying or withholding known information, in order to persuade a person to do something they would not have done had they been given truthful information, they would still have a medical malpractice case. Tests done that would indicate a high probability of birth defect -- or anything that showed actual birth defect -- can still be subpoenaed and argued in court. A doctor is required to be truthful with their patient about what tests indicate, and expert witnesses (other doctors) can refute one doctor's testimony. None of that changes with this legislation.

(I see this a little bit like the issue you've talked about with people without much of a case of real wrongdoing on the part of a defendant able to go after the deepest pockets.)

It seems it may be shielding the doctor from having to defend against claims far removed from a doctor's ability to be at cause -- like whether or not someone should conceive in the first place -- but if anyone can present how this legislation shields a doctor from actual misfeasance, I'd like to consider that. I just don't see it now.

Valjean said:

Saw this in the paper, today. Apparently another roundabout mechanism to prevent abortions.
Texas Lawmakers Advance Bill That Would Allow Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Women

This has worrisome implications.
Opinions?

Click to expand...

WTF?!?!

Revoltingest said:

If a doc is a pro-lifer, any future for the fetus could be better than abortion.
There are a diversity of beliefs out there in the doctor world....& each gets
to impose personal belief upon the patient. This is wrongo pongo.

Click to expand...

This is why I dislike a dichotomy of black and white morality. Life is too messy for that.

One can always seek a second opinion, from another doctor. If one has the money and the time...

SomeRandom said:

This is why I dislike a dichotomy of black and white morality. Life is too messy for that.

Click to expand...

For me personally, morality is pretty black & white.
But when looking at society in general, that's where
it gets complicated.

Revoltingest said:

(I'm too lazy & distracted to read the bill. So I depend upon you.)

Click to expand...

(Bet that's the last time you assume you'll save time by relying on me to explain my thoughts on something, rather than read a bill. I forgot to mention it consists of just a few sentences. Tee, Hee )