Hi, Pamela, I have a question: what is your source for the statement that patients who suffer complications or malpractice will have no recourse? I did not read the full text of the bill, but from the summary I see nothing that would preclude any lawsuit against a physician who is grossly incompetent or negligent, in terms of the technical aspects of care.
I recognize that some people think that any gender transition medication or surgery is by definition malpractice; I'm referring here to cases where the doctor botches the mastectomy, prescribes a medication for a patient for whom it is clearly contraindicated due to a medical condition. Essentially, I'm speaking here of cases that would violate WPATH standards, because in my opinion that is what it SHOULD mean if gender affirming care is legal within the state-it should be legal to perform so long as the current standard of care is followed. This bill apparently provides gender doctors with similar levels of protection as abortion doctors, as well as any doctor providing any type of birth control, medical or surgical. There are many such laws relating to those topics around the country, and it doesn't universally shield providers from malpractice action. Instead, it simply seeks to hold providers to the standard intended by state law. Meaning, if it is legal to perform abortions in State A, then a doctor shouldn't be able to be sued or jailed in State B for an abortion that was performed competantly in State A.
Laws like this are actually essential in a country where medical care is regulated state by state. Otherwise, a prohibition in one state would necessarily become a prohibition in all states, even if the legislators (or even a constitutional amendment voted on by the public) in all the other states expressly wished to allow it. Very few doctors will perform a procedure that is legal in one state if doing so leaves them open to a civil judgement based on another state's prohibition.
My reading of the summary indicates that that is the intention of this bill. I see nothing to indicate that a patient who suffers harm-above and beyond the provision of elective procedures that they or their parents consented to but later determined were actually not in their best interest-would not be able to sue for it. In other words, the situation in Delaware under this bill would be no different than it was before any other states began banning such procedures in the last few years. Not a great situation, but nothing new or different. And honestly, no matter what I or anyone thinks of the particular type of care in question, I do think that as long as medical care is regulated state by state, it's vital for Doctors and all providers to be able to count on not being prosecuted or sued for doing something that was entirely legal both federal and in the state in which it was done. I don't think our system can work otherwise, and as I said I think the alternate outcome would consolidate power over the whole country in any one state that decided to go against the vast majority and ban a given med or treatment.
Please let me know though if I'm missing something or misreading the summary.
Every Democrat in the Delaware legislature will vote for it.
Hi, Pamela, I have a question: what is your source for the statement that patients who suffer complications or malpractice will have no recourse? I did not read the full text of the bill, but from the summary I see nothing that would preclude any lawsuit against a physician who is grossly incompetent or negligent, in terms of the technical aspects of care.
I recognize that some people think that any gender transition medication or surgery is by definition malpractice; I'm referring here to cases where the doctor botches the mastectomy, prescribes a medication for a patient for whom it is clearly contraindicated due to a medical condition. Essentially, I'm speaking here of cases that would violate WPATH standards, because in my opinion that is what it SHOULD mean if gender affirming care is legal within the state-it should be legal to perform so long as the current standard of care is followed. This bill apparently provides gender doctors with similar levels of protection as abortion doctors, as well as any doctor providing any type of birth control, medical or surgical. There are many such laws relating to those topics around the country, and it doesn't universally shield providers from malpractice action. Instead, it simply seeks to hold providers to the standard intended by state law. Meaning, if it is legal to perform abortions in State A, then a doctor shouldn't be able to be sued or jailed in State B for an abortion that was performed competantly in State A.
Laws like this are actually essential in a country where medical care is regulated state by state. Otherwise, a prohibition in one state would necessarily become a prohibition in all states, even if the legislators (or even a constitutional amendment voted on by the public) in all the other states expressly wished to allow it. Very few doctors will perform a procedure that is legal in one state if doing so leaves them open to a civil judgement based on another state's prohibition.
My reading of the summary indicates that that is the intention of this bill. I see nothing to indicate that a patient who suffers harm-above and beyond the provision of elective procedures that they or their parents consented to but later determined were actually not in their best interest-would not be able to sue for it. In other words, the situation in Delaware under this bill would be no different than it was before any other states began banning such procedures in the last few years. Not a great situation, but nothing new or different. And honestly, no matter what I or anyone thinks of the particular type of care in question, I do think that as long as medical care is regulated state by state, it's vital for Doctors and all providers to be able to count on not being prosecuted or sued for doing something that was entirely legal both federal and in the state in which it was done. I don't think our system can work otherwise, and as I said I think the alternate outcome would consolidate power over the whole country in any one state that decided to go against the vast majority and ban a given med or treatment.
Please let me know though if I'm missing something or misreading the summary.