--
Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.
Obstetrics & Gynecology, Maternal-Fetal Medicine
The Birth Center/Rocky Mountain Women's Health
1211 S. Reserve St.
Missoula, Montana, 59801
406-549-0978
fax 406-549-0987
e-mail: apgar10@thebirthcentermt.com
________________________________
From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
________________________________
Richard Chudacoff
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:14 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
Subject: Re: LAW Reviving the dead case
Wonder what the parents would have sued for if the baby died.
Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
________________________________
From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
________________________________
DoctorJoe@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:02 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
Subject: LAW Reviving the dead case
Court: Doctor Not Liable for Reviving Child
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_scow_revived_baby.html>
<http://www.trialsmith.com/images/spacer.gif>
A doctor who revived a baby born without a heartbeat and who now suffers
from severe disabilities cannot be held liable for malpractice, the
Washington Supreme Court has ruled. The child's parents argued that the
doctor should have sought consent before attempting to resuscitate the
child for more than half an hour. The justice reasoned that saving a
life is the preferable outcome, even if it means disability for the
patient. Curt Woodward, Seattle Post-Intelligencer 11/08/2007
Read Article: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_scow_revived_baby.html>
Interesting that this comes from the Left Coast, but it seems to hold
with classic legal reasoning. Live is preferable to death -- the rest is
just details. Or something like that.
Joe P.
________________________________
See what's new at AOL.com =
________________________________
and Make AOL Your Homepage
