It would have been negligent for the physician to NOT present ALL of the options to this patient. She could have sued him for not presenting all the options. In fact, there are "wrongful birth" lawsuits trying to make their way thru the legal system at the present time, from parents who feel that termination should have been presented as an option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_birth
Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities.[1] Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.
She also could have LEFT this doc's care, and chosen a new provider if she felt such "dread" at coming to her prenatal appointments. In fact, I'd argue that she SHOULD have changed docs if she felt "dread". Clearly there was no trust and confidence there on her part.
I agree that this woman has a huge chip on her shoulder, and a very transparent agenda. She also clearly loves and cherishes her child, and for that, I'm delighted. That doesn't mean that her doc did a bad thing by informing her of the diagnosis and her options. We don't know from her letter, but she may be opposed to abortion in any circumstance, so the mere mention of this by her doc pushed all those buttons for her, and now she feels she needs to condemn him and "show off" her child as revenge or retribution, and to show her support for her choice and her beliefs. And again, the medical professional CANNOT SAY A THING IN THEIR DEFENSE. That is the power of our privacy laws, and the exploitation of the media.
Either way, her choice was her choice, and she is definitely seeking attention, notoriety, and
validation for her decision, from strangers. And instead of sheltering her child from the public, she is
using her, IMO, and
exploiting her to show what a great mom she is for not choosing termination. She doesn't even realize, IMO, how much she is exploiting her child and her child's privacy-- a vulnerable child, no less.
Terminating a pregnancy is a difficult legal and personal choice, and should remain legal and personal, IMO. It is even more difficult when the pregnancy was planned, and the fetus is profoundly deformed/ disabled/ has serious anomalies/ conditions incompatible with life-- whichever phrase folks prefer. I'd argue that it should be fully covered by either insurance, or through charities, as well.
I am also well aware that there are advocates who specifically want to "outlaw" Down Syndrome as a "reason" for choosing termination, as they feel that eradication of DS should not be a goal. That DS is a "variant" of human beings, as opposed to a genetic anomaly with serious birth defects. I agree that all DS kids who are here deserve all of the love and care they need for their lifelong situation, but I have a real problem with the issues of the advocates who want to "outlaw" all prenatal testing for DS, and those who believe that we should not try to eradicate birth defects.
I think it's also important to understand that individuals afflicted with DS conditions do not have the same set of medical issues-- some individuals are severely afflicted with many serious conditions, and very low IQ's, and are quite medically fragile, and have lifelong dependency needs, while others are "high functioning", and able to live in group homes and hold supervised menial jobs in certain industries. High functioning with few medical issues is not really the norm-- it's the exception.
If one chooses to carry and raise a DS child, then the care for that child and intensive services begin at the moment of diagnosis. So, IMO, it's essential that EACH pregnant woman be screened for DS, so that the woman can make the best decisions for her and her fetus, with her docs. We can't "eliminate" screening because it leads to abortions of DS fetuses, because the women who plan to birth and raise their DS child NEED early identification for proper medical support.
IMO, some of the celebrities who have chosen to carry and raise their DS children have presented the most irresponsible behavior in their public lives while pregnant. That leads the public to think that a DS pregnancy is "no big deal". For example, Sarah Palin's public travel and behavior at the end of her pregnancy with Trig was, IMO, deplorable, irresponsible, and highly unsafe for Trig, IMO.