Ethical concerns relating to proposed Kansas law and lying

[KingsGambit]

I'm curious what the rest of you here think about the recently proposed Kansas law allowing doctors to lie to prevent abortions. While I understand the net goal is to prevent abortions, I am extremely uncomfortable with anything that seems to encourage dishonesty, and have concerns about anything that more broadly reduces people's trust in their physicians, undermining the Hippocratic oath. I am very disappointed in anyone in the pro-life movement who would take this tack in light of Proverbs 6:17.

[eudyptes]

do you have a link or anything for the proposed law?

[Cerebrum123]

In my experience many of the doctors are already lying to their patients, and if this law is what you are saying then it is a BAD idea.

[KingsGambit]

The relevant part is on the third page. http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12...98_00_0000.pdf

The purpose of the wording seems to be to protect doctors from liability if they mislead patients in order to prevent them from seeking an abortion, which is admittedly a laudable end goal, but not a mechanism I approve of.

[Teallaura]

I don't see what you're talking about. The wrongful life thing?

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2598_00_0000.pdf

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to create any new cause of
action, nor preclude any otherwise proper cause of action based on a claim
that, but for a person’s wrongful action, or omission, the death or injury of
the mother would not have occurred, or the handicap, disease or disability
of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured or
ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of such
individual.

© source where applicable

If that's what you're refering to, it doesn't create a 'right' to lie - it actually maintains the status quo. If it was wrongful prior to this law it still is and if not then it isn't. It prevents a 'wrongful life/birth' suit but doesn't prevent malpractice or malfeasance suits. Basically, the argument 'if you'd have told us we'd have had an abortion' won't work in court now but 'if you'd have told us we'd have been better prepared/might have had a better post birth outcome (circumstances depending)' would still fly just fine.

It protects a physician from liability if a child is born with whatever defect regardless of why he/she didn't inform the parents based on the parents unwillingness to have had the child. It does not protect the physician from liability if he fails to inform the parents and that causes injury (legal) because the parents are improperly prepared. So, increased costs directly resultant from the physician's omission are recoverable; lifelong care costs of an unwanted child are not.

Sure, it can have the effect of shielding the physician should he/she delibrately withhold information from parents who have expressed a wish to abort less-than-perfect children but in practice, that probably won't occur often. The real point is to prevent a new class of injury 'wrongful life'.

As an ethical matter, would Dr Bob have a duty to disclose a heart valve defect if the parents had indicated they would take their ten year old home and 'peacefully' kill him or a duty to withhold? I'd argue withhold - the parent's unwillingness to fork over the insurance card for heart surgery is not binding on the physician such that he should allow a child to be killed. In Utero is no different - a parent's unwillingness to deal with a 'defective' child is not binding on the physician such that he should allow an infant to be killed. The baby is a patient, too and the doctor has a duty to act for both patients, not just the noisy one with heart problems of another sort. If it is not ethical to do to a ten year old, it isn't ethical to do to a fetus. The operative term is human, not any of the adjectives refering to stage of development.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You have to be careful in interpreting laws not to assume that one "possible" awful consequence is the reason for the law or wording. It would be like reading a statute of limitations and saying that the law now rewards people for lying about things they did by letting them off if they lie long enough. That is not the purpose behind the law, though it is a consequence of it. Many things will allow people who want to do wrong to use it for that. There isn't enough laws or qualifying words to defeat a person like that. They will always find a way.