N.J. Court Panel Rules Jury Can Consider If Doctor Being Sued For Emotional Damages Over Abortion Gave Adequate Information

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 13 Apr 2006 - 6:00 PDT


A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court on Friday unanimously ruled that a jury can consider whether a doctor gave adequate medical information to a woman who claims she was unable to give informed consent to undergo an abortion, the AP/WNBC reports (Gold, AP/WNBC, 4/7). According to court papers, physician Sheldon Turkish in 1996 told Rosa Acuna, who was eight weeks pregnant, that she had to undergo an "immediate abortion" because her pregnancy was causing damage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish "incorrectly told [her] ... that she was not aborting a human life" when she underwent the procedure, adding that she has experienced psychological trauma, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosexual dysfunction, as a result of the abortion. A trial judge previously had dismissed the case -- stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a "fetus is not a person" -- but an appellate court ruled that Acuna could sue for damages involving "a question of medical malpractice" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/31/02). Appellate Court Judge Ariel Rodriques, writing for the three-judge panel, dismissed the wrongful death claim in the lawsuit but wrote that a jury could decide "[w]hat medical information is material and must be disclosed by an obstetrician when advising a patient to terminate a pregnancy and what medical information is material when the patient asks if the 'baby' is already there." Rodriques added, "Obviously, the term 'baby' meant something different to Acuna and Turkish. For her, it meant an embryo or fetus; for the doctor, a human being following birth. Arguably, from Turkish's perspective, he answered correctly and discharged his duty to his patient by indicating there was no 'baby' there" (Hester, Newark Star-Ledger, 4/8). The ruling sends the case back for a possible trial in a New Brunswick, N.J., court (AP/WNBC, 4/7). Acuna is suing Turkish and the Obstetrical and Gynecological Group of Perth Amboy and Edison (Newark Star-Ledger, 4/8). "A jury will have to decide what is the nature of the fetus," Acuna's attorney Harold Cassidy said, adding that Turkish had a "duty to disclose" that Acuna's fetus was a "whole unique member of the species Homo sapiens" (AP/WNBC, 4/7).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations