The Glade 4.0

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/wrongf ... -for-not-b

probably coming soon to the US

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Imagine a slightly different scenario:

Patient has a family history of some horrible degenerative illness with a genetic component, so he goes to a doctor for a genetic screening to see if he's going to get it. If the answer is yes, he intends to prepare a living will with a Do Not Resucitate order, because he doesn't want to suffer through the illness and bankrupt his family in the process. Doctor negligently screws up the test and tells the patient he's fine when in reality he does have the faulty gene.

Later that year, the patient has a massive heart attack and, because there's no DNR order, the paramedics resucitate him. He later develops the symptoms of the aforementioned genetic illness and discovers that the genetic screening doctor was negligent. Should he be allowed to sue that genetic screening doctor for pain and suffering and the costs of his illness on the theory that if the screening had been done properly, he'd have had that DNR and would now be dead and thus would not be suffering and incurring huge medical bills?

He should be able to sue the screening doctor for his negligence regardless. Any action he could/would have taken is entirely speculative and should not have any bearing on the lawsuit, I think.

So wait a minute....Kids are bringing lawsuits demanding conpensation for not being killed in-utero?

So instead of a payoff, why aren't they simply granted what it is that they wanted in the first place? They should be killed. Simple solution, I would think...

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard about.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Kinda underscores the idiocy of not allowing legal euthanasia, no?

Easy solution.

Just let parents legally terminate their progeny at any stage.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

As Elmo would say... get a guy in a lifeguard uniform with zinc oxide on his nose, a whistle and a .44 mag.
*whistle blows* "YOU! Out of the gene pool!" *BLAM*

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

What an absolutely awful life...bad enough to have a disability, but to have your parents (and in some cases YOU) declare that you would be better of dead? How horrible!

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I had a thought- could this type of lawsuit be used to do an end run around insurance libality laws? Like if the insurance company wont cover part of their treatment for whatever reason, would a successful suit by the kid force the judge to force the insurance companies to pay on something they normally wouldn't have to?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Then the kid can sue their parents for emotional abuse of knowing they filed this lawsuit.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville