Comments on: Part of the Deal

By: david c

david c — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:42:02 +0000

Joe,

I think the test David is referring to is the AFP (alphafetalprotein?) test. As long ago as 25 years (the age of our oldest) we had to sign a waiver if we refused to take it. I believe the waiver was, at least in the case of MA (our home at the time) was probably a liability waiver, but I know for certain that at least one state (California) requires the test by law. Pentamom is likely right that there are probably other states that require it by law as well…

By: pentamom

pentamom — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:25:01 +0000

Joe McFaul, if David’s referring to the common blood test that I think he has in mind, it is a law in many, if not all states. As long as 20 years ago I had to sign a legal waiver for refusing the test in New York, and it was a matter of law, not liability. The point at which informed consent bumps up against professional discretion seems to vary with ideology rather than comparable application.

By: Joe Mc Faul

Joe Mc Faul — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:03:54 +0000

I’d be interested to know but I don’t think it was a law. I think it is more likely a requirement of the doctor’s malpractice carrier.

By: David Strunk

David Strunk — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:43:42 +0000

I recently had a child, and the law required our OBGYN before the birth (can’t remember if it was a state or federal law) that the doctor tell us about a test to detect Down’s Syndrome and certain stages, and potential “procedures” that would be available if it were in fact detected. If the law can compel this, it can certainly compel the opposite. I don’t hear Planned Parenthood arguing the exact same logic on this issue. It is, in fact, the exact same logic, and the same statement they use could be applied to the issue of Down’s detection.

Where are they on this issue?