themistocles

Would a pro-choicer favor the strangulation of this crippled person?

tick, tick, tick...

Opera Nut

I would say no, I wouldn't strangle them, but the next time they went into cardiac arrest, a DNR order would be in place.
Passive euthanasia as it were.

These people settled for a certain amount of money, and the judge agreed to it, so it conformed to American (mostly Anglo-Saxon ) law.

Another case:
I took down a civil trial for a malpractice case where a child was born with oxygen deprivation b/c during labor, the woman's uterus ruptured, and the placenta was torn from the uterine wall, therefore the oxygen supply was stopped and the child was retarded from hypoxia.

The doctor should have performed a C-section, as a uterus that ruptures is way beyond any normal amount of stress during labor. That's why women should not be in active labor for 24 hours or more. I've heard too many horror stories from women whose doctors were very reluctant to use a C section to ensure a healthy baby and momma. (Don't get me started on my soapbox about what an impossible farce natural childbirth is in some cases -- like mine!!)


There was a DNR order in place that I heard about from the other court personnel, and there had been one in place for a long time.

That's Do Not Resuscitate, a medical order in place for extremely frail or critically ill patients with no hope of a normal life.

A couple years later, the child died. I contend that a wrongful birth suit would have been appropriate, had the case law been modified at that point to accomodate it.

brighid

No! Why would a person who favors the CHOICE for abortion strangle a crippled person?

Brighid

long winded fool

While it does sound ridiculous, the point is valid. Why would someone who favors basic human rights (my body, my choice) also advocate the omission of specific humans from these rights? (his/hers/its body, still my choice.)