Woman Sues Over Failed Abortion...

Someone who can't deal with life no matter what.

Time for a fisking.....

Mother who gave birth after failed abortion 'has no grounds' to sue
NHS
LOUISE HOSIE AND GORDON CURRIE
A WOMAN suing a hospital after giving
birth to a baby girl despite having an abortion was given no guarantees that the
termination would be successful, a court heard yesterday.
Stacy Dow, 21, of
Perth, has launched a £250,000 civil damages claim against Tayside University
Hospitals NHS Trust for the "financial burden" of raising her daughter Jayde,
who she had when she was 16.

An abortion, according to NOW is usually a last ditch effot to stop a prgnancy. I honestly don't see how you can sue for breech of contract since there are no guarantees.

Miss Dow decided to have an abortion when she became pregnant with twins.
But a few months later she discovered she was still pregnant with one of the
twins, by which time a second abortion was too late.
Miss Dow is said to
have suffered "distress and anxiety" from the discovery of her continued
pregnancy and "pain and discomfort" when she had her daughter by Caesarean
section. She also argues she has suffered a loss of earnings because she is a
single mother.

Oh, cry me a river! She has suffered as much as any woman throughout history. And they have to pay her because they made her a single mother? I think she risked that when she went all the way with some un-named guy. And hurt earning potential? Businesses in this day and age are pretty flexible about having kids. Granted, you'll less-likely be on call with a kid but if the child gets in your way to your career you can always put it up for adoption. I know that sounds cold but this woman here still acts like she doesn't want her child and it would be in girl's best interest if she was up for adoption.

She claims the NHS failed to properly carry out the abortion at Perth Royal
Infirmary in January 2001, constituting a breach of contract.

You don't sign contracts with hospitals. Also, why sue 5 years after the event? Did you just decide all of a sudden that you had some expenses that the hospital could cover?

Hospital bosses, who are defending the action, say Jayde is a normal,
healthy child and that the £250,000 claim is excessive. They accept one twin was
not terminated during the abortion, but say a doctor carried out the proper
checks after the termination and could find no evidence of a remaining
foetus.

Um. I don't see how a doctor can have it both ways. With an abortion a baby dies. Without the abortion a baby is healthy? Ingenious! If I would screw up someone would live... It is like the old undertaker joke. You'd think they'd be a bit liable for something. (Not that I agree with abortion, but if we take the side of the doctor who says they find nothing wrong with the baby living. If that is the case why promote abortion in the first place?)

Advocate David Stephenson, representing the hospital authority, said
yesterday that no contract had existed between Miss Dow and her consultant when
she was told an abortion would be carried out, so her claim was not relevant.
"Nothing said to the pursuer [ie Miss Dow] by the doctor could or did mention a
warranty that her pregnancy would be terminated," he said.

Funny how he is right. You don't sign contracts when you get medical care. It has been that way throughout history because medicine is a lot of guestimation as to the problem. If you signed a contract and expected to get well every doctor would be sued out of existence by litigation and tort law with people who want fast bucks. The doctor does their best in a treatment or cure and that is all they can do. Even if something is flat-out pinpointed there are still no guarantees because each person has a different reaction, each cancer cell acts differently, each patient doesn't do every step on time. Their are too many variables to effectively litigate on.

He said: "NHS patients do not normally contract with their health trust or
health boards for the provision of medical service. These services are delivered
as part of a statutory obligation."
And he added that only in "truly
extraordinary" circumstances would any sort of contract between a doctor and a
patient be entered into. "Nothing is said that could take this case out of the
ordinary class of NHS treatment," he said.

I think what he means is experimental treatment is contracted because of heightened risk and less effectiveness of a cure/tratment. And that is because things can go bad. Very very bad

Also take note of the "Statutory Obligation" comment. A quick look in any country with socialised medicine and you'll find response times for medical treatment are lagging, less effective, and not as liable. The reason is it is a state mandated program and when the state gets control of certain things they get Sovereign Immunity from suits. The reason is, as the courts declare, because it is free access to everyone nation-wide, with low or no cost, and no warranties implied. In other words, an abortion was performed, they did goof up and did not detect a second baby, but because abortion is available to all and streamlined no less, and to keep cost down for service, the case will be dismissed. Well that is how they'd rule here and in Canada. (Free clinics and their liability is also more limited.) I've seen a bit of Sovereign Immunity in play in my Emergency Communications classes. Some cases that were stupid won big dollars. Some that should have won were tossed out. It all depends on availability of service to the public by a government agency.

Andrew Smith QC, representing Miss Dow, said the case was "extremely
important" and almost unique in its legal considerations. According to court
papers, Miss Dow - who had been on the contraceptive pill until it made her ill
- had been expecting dizygotic twins (non-identical from two separate eggs) who
would both have been viable.
Her action states: "This [the birth] was caused
by the fault and negligence of the medical staff. They ought to have known that
further inquiry following surgery was necessary to establish the success of the
termination of both foetuses.
"They had a duty to take reasonable care to
establish that the termination had been successful. They ought to have known the
contraceptive jag could have masked the symptoms of continuing pregnancy. But
for these failures, she would not have suffered the loss, injury and damage she
has."
Sheriff Fletcher adjourned the case until March 29.

Once again. Blaming the staff for her getting pregnant and not "curing" her pregnancy. They did all they could, you did not do all you could, like not sleeping around. Go take a hike.