Judge: Parents Who Would Have Aborted Cystic Fibrosis Baby Can Sue

[juliee]

Judge: Parents Who Would Have Aborted Cystic Fibrosis Baby Can Sue

Great Falls, MT – A Montana couple who say they would have killed their baby in an abortion had the physician informed them they would have a child with cystic fibrosis may sue. That’s the decision District Judge Mike Salvagni issued this week for Kerrie and Joe Evans, saying they should be able to take their case to a higher court.

lifenews.com/2012/06/22/judge-parents-who-would-have-aborted-cystic-fibrosis-baby-can-sue/

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Maybe the parents should put their heads out of their butts and realize what a blessing their child is, even if faced with such obvious difficulty. There are so many parents in this world who do not at all deserve to be parents. It’s tragic.

 

[TeenageConvert]

Selfish insert profane words here .

 

[DeniseNY]

The Evanses are seeking damages “for a missed opportunity to abort their daughter

Chilling

 

[cjmclark]

The Evanses are seeking damages “for a missed opportunity to abort their daughter

What’s truly sad is that she will know about this someday. I can’t imagine discovering that my parents not only would have aborted me for having cystic fibrosis, but that they actually sued because they were “denied the opportunity”. Try having that talk with your kid.

Yikes.

 

[Alder]

The abortion issue aside, this case, going from the article, seems more based on the fact the couple believes the doctor failed to screen for cystic fibrosis, even when the couple said they were worried about the disease.

The Gardiner couple said Scanson failed to exercise a standard of care by failing to have them accept or reject blood tests to determine if they carried the recessive gene that would have given their unborn child a 25 percent chance of being born with cystic fibrosis, a disease that causes mucus to build up in the lungs

The couple also alleged that Scanson failed to order a test for the disease as part of risky genetic testing Kerrie Evans underwent during the first trimester of her pregnancy, even though she had expressed her concerns about the disease to Scanson.

 

[cjmclark]

The abortion issue aside, this case, going from the article, seems more based on the fact the couple believes the doctor failed to screen for cystic fibrosis, even when the couple said they were worried about the disease.

The fact that cystic fibrosis is inherited at conception and is currently incurable inextricably links the screening issue with the abortion issue. The deciding judge wrote:

The case is about “Kerrie’s lost right to make an informed, intelligent decision about whether or not to terminate her pregnancy,” Salvagni wrote. Ruling otherwise would “immunize from liability those in the medical field providing guidance to persons who would choose to exercise their constitutional right to abort their fetuses, which, if born, would suffer from genetic (or other) defects.”

The couple is suing for monetary compensation for emotional distress (ok, understandable in a case of negligence) and to cover the medical care their daughter will require since they were “denied the opportunity” to abort her. So I think the abortion issue is pretty much at the forefront of this.

 

[stephe1987]

Oh, please. They could have gone to a different doctor and get a second opinion if they were really worried. And get an insurance plan that will cover the CF medication. I know people with CF and they are just fine. How horrible to abort because your child has CF!

Also, there are something like 7,000-14,000 couples on waiting lists to adopt kids with disabilities.

This “if I can’t have the baby, no one can” attitude is sickening.