Subj : Re: Nobody's ... script editor
To   : alt.tv.er
From : KL
Date : Fri Sep 30 2005 11:47:29

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

on 9/30/2005 10:03 AM npardue@indiana.edu said the following:
> Sharon wrote:
> 
>>>Lordy ... that sucked!
> 
> 
> I know I said I was going to be 'concise', but the more I think about
> it, the more absurb the whole main plot seems to be.
> 
> Surrocacy is no longer  a brand new, cutting edge procedure with
> unanticipated and unimagined medico-legal .  It's been around for a
> couple of decades now. Most of the problems have already occured, been
> dealt with by the courts, and are now incorporated into surrocacy
> contracts.
> 
> So I can't imagine that these two parties would have entered into the
> agreement without a detailed contract spelling out rights and
> resposibilities of each,and covering the various possible
> contingencies. Not just a vague 'you agreed to any necessary medical
> procedures,' (or whatever the line was), but things like under what
> circumstances a c-section would be performed (say, if two doctors
> agreed that it was necessary, or under certain specified physical
> conditions [like... a transverse lie/footling breech presentation!];
> who would be responsible for the child in case of unanticipated birth
> defects or birth-injuries, and so on.

This is what really got my ire up.  Obviously these "parents" weren't 
ready to become parents.  They didn't really want a child, they wanted 
the perfect HWI(Healthy White Infant).  I think it's disgusting that 
they would just walk away like that.  That child IS theirs, it was only 
a surogate carrying the baby to birth.  Would they have walked away if 
the wife had carried the baby to term and the baby had the same kind of 
damage?

KL

> Also, where was Claire's midwife? SHe'd planned a home birth, so
> presumably she was using a midwife rather than an ob. (I can't imaging
> Toni and Rod agreeing to an unattended home birth.)  If they'd called
> the midwife, surely she would have been able to explain to Claire the
> risks of going ahead with a vaginal delivery, and get her consent for
> the section. If nothing else, she would have been a familiar person
> there to help Claire during the labor and delivery.
> 
> Finally, couldn't help noticing that the whole time Claire was laboring
> in the ER, she was in no noticable discomfort whatsoever. It wasn't
> until they started moving her up to OB that she's suddenly screaming
> and doubling over with her contractions. (At first, having missing
> those first 15 minutes, I'd assumed that she had an epidural!)
> 
> 
> Naomi
> 
> 
>>Couldn't agree more. In the middle I even turned over to ABC for a bit to
>>see GC on Primetime. Didn't miss a thing. It was just plain boring,
>>predictable, been there before. All I kep thinking was, "not another refusal
>>to have a C-section" plot. Then Ray at the end doing a Carter with the
>>baby - eesh. Why do they feel a need to replace a character?
>>
>>-Sharon
> 
> 

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

.