I can see withholding treatment options that the doctor thinks are way too risky or untested. Barely. I can barely see it and can't think of an example where I would support it.

But withholding information with regard to the health of the baby??? Bullocks!

A couple things come to mind. First, babies with Down Syndrome are almost all aborted (see the Ethical section of the article), so to hang on to that might prevent an abortion if you as the doctor don't support them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Second, the tests for this sort of thing are either dangerous (amniocentesis has about a 1 in 100 chance of causing a miscarriage, which as far as odds go in my opinion, is pretty high) or have a high rate of false positives, which are also bad:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Down-Syndrome---High-Risk-Mothers-And-Early-Detection&id=1013829

This is nuts and dangerous in all directions.

Nola, I'm not sure what your point is.

If someone does not consider it a baby, are you really withholding information about the health of the baby? I know you do not want this about abortion - and I'm not trying to bring it in - but fundamentally the same issue is at hand: Is it a baby deserving of health information or not? If it is not yet deemed life, can it have a health status to be discussed and therefore no moral issue arises.

My point is that if doctors want to prevent abortions, then statistically, not divulging certain information is likely to help prevent them.

Yes. I believe that is why the law was passed,no?

To my knowledge that is why it was passed. I personally think the ultrasound part is more useful myself (abortion rates tend to decline a lot when women are shown an ultrasound) and most abortion clinics already have one because they are used when doing surgical abortions.

I do not believe it is moral for a doctor to withhold the information that the baby will be born with down syndrome or some other birth defect. I am also speaking from a right to life perspective. So, I'm surprised that they would pass that law. I would be upset if I was not informed of my child's birth defect despite the fact that I would not consider abortion an option in that case.

Thanks patzi. I was juSt about to ask if anyone prolife would have a problem with this law.

"if it is not yet deemed life, can it have a health status to be discussed and therefore no moral issue arises. " - you are still talking about the healthy developement of what will be life - ie you are able to discuss potential health effects which may occur - is this not still a moral issue?

@Orthaic - ahhhh, but that's the moral dilema, isn't it? That's why I proposed the question - top evoke your response. It "will be life"? Then it is life, is it not?

Dingleberry, I am ProLife, and whether or not the law is intended to prevent abortions or not, it is morally reprehensible to withhold information. It's the slippery slope...if doctors can withhold this information to prevent abortion because they believe it is wrong, them some other doctor will have the moral argument to withhold information, say, for an elderly person - thus preventing them a treatment option to expedite the end of their life, because their care will cost too much/they don't contribute to society/etc.

@Krellin - no if 'it may be life if we let it develop' and 'it will suffer if it becomes life' then you can come to the position that we MUST abort. (and as all children will suffer at some point this logic can clearly be used for all potential life if you want) but if it is not life now stopping it from developing is not a morale problem (especially when you are trying to minimise suffering!)

"thus preventing them a treatment option to expedite the end of their life"

equally the patient should be given information which will allow them choose to avoid a slow deterioration of their life if they wish to end their life sooner.

I agree the doctor should not withhold information, but the doctor should also not be required to perform/offer treatments which he thinks is immoral - thus assisting suicide or prolonging suffer of an elderly patient (both can be considered immoral) So how do you prove informed consent for a procedure?

@Orthaic: If the object of abortion is to stop a potential life from suffering, then ALL life must be ended, because every human being suffers at some point. That's kind of a ridiculous argument. The very notion that a birth defect equals suffering is archaic. Ever known somebody with Downe's? Some of the nicest, happiest people I have ever met...

"then ALL life must be ended, because every human being suffers at some point. That's kind of a ridiculous argument." - i know, i made it, and pointed out how ridiculous (i said "this logic can clearly be used for all potential life if you want")

One of my closest friends was born with a life threatening heart condition and fortunately survived his first two years of life through various surgical procedures. If he had been aborted to prevent the chance of a painful death I wouldn't have had a chance to get to know him.

So i'm not saying the objective of abortion is to stop human suffering, but that doesn't mean it is immoral to abort a fetus for medical reasons.

In fact i am not infinite in my powers of judgement of whether someone should be allowed to develop or not. As i've said before i should not be allowed to decide whether a woman aborts her pregnancy. I should have no say unless it is my child, and we have agreed before hand to use her body to grow a new person.

But abortion aside...as that was not the intent of the post...we both agree it is morally reprehensible to withhold medical information, coming (apparently) from different sides of the abortion argument.

yes, i agree but it becomes a difficult question when you are talking about informed consent for a patient - do they need a medical degree to really be informed? and even then a graduate diploma in statictics to really understand the risk?

But this piece of legislation is an issue because it is entirely politically motivated (i assume they can

(i assume they can't simply ban abortions) so they are trying to get around the issue.

Doing so they are twisting the law to push their policy forward without concern for the morals at the core of the issue. (so the ends justify the means in their minds) I would say they are wrong, even if i can understand their motivation...

They are concerned with the morals of the issue...just a different set of morals

yeah, i agree, but i don't think the misleading people is a good way to encourage them to follow your set of morals.