$4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Adam Freedman ·
October 18, 2011 at 6:40pm
A jury in West Palm Beach has awarded $4.5 million to a couple who complained that they were denied the opportunity to abort their disabled child. If only the doctors and technicians had properly administered the prenatal ultrasounds so as to disclose the child's disabilities the couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy. Thus, the parents sued under the tort of "wrongful birth," i.e. the birth of the a child is an "injury" to the parents. (ht: Overlawyered)
I can understand the parents' anger at the doctors. And perhaps this lawsuit offered them the best tactic to get money to care for their son. So I don't want to condemn the parents. But the very existence of a tort of wrongful birth is revolting.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
It's not hard to imagine at all, is it, that even parents who knew their child had some defect or other still sue the doctor for not having "fully informed" them of the costs and consequences to them of having a disabled child.
It's easy to imagine, too, that tax payers will sue parents who don't abort their disabled children for educational and health costs incurred by their choice to bring a defective child into the world.
And on it goes, straight to hell.
Edited on October 19, 2011 at 5:30amOct '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
These bizarre causes of action are rooted in the contraceptive/abortive mentality. At one point, people had the odd belief that a sexual act may lead to the birth of a child. Nowadays we're much more sophisticated. Any sexual act is assumed sterile unless otherwise desired by the participants. If the obvious consequence of the sexual act, a child, is not desired by the participants, we have the right to dispose of that obvious consequence. I do not desire a child, so dispose of him. If you do not properly dispose of him, I will sue you because my rights to dispose have been breached. I desire a perfect child; if he is not perfect, dispose of him. If you do not properly dispose of the child; I will sue you.
Case dismissed on summary judgment because plaintiffs assumed the risk of having a child by engaging in consensual sex and are strictly liable for any child that mysteriously results from engaging in said act.
Yes, I know the doctor agreed to perform a service (screen and/or abort) and did not perform it properly and may be held liable. But, what bizarre circumstances the abortive mentality has wrought.
Sep '11
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Tom Paine/Katievs:
You're using the future tense--incorrectly. The population of children with Down syndrome has dropped dramatically because ob/gyns routinely encourage parents to abort. Nowadays something like 95% of Downs babies are aborted.
And Katievs--I have a daughter with Down syndrome, and I actively worry about getting "blamed and shamed" for having a child who uses tax dollars for special ed. It will be an issue in 2012: everybody wants to talk about entitlement reform--but no politician in the world is going to take on AARP. Farm subsidies? Not a chance. The big entitlement that's going to get "reformed"? Special ed, and services for the mentally disabled.
I have spent twenty years working on the assumption that there will come a day when Annie gets zero support from anyone other than her family--and will be deemed "not a good candidate" for any kind of medical care for anything more serious than the flu. That day is coming soon--and it's precisely that fear that Trig Palin's mom referred to when she used the term "death panels."
Aug '11
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Doctor: "Based on the genome screening, here's a series of 3D images of your child at various stages of life, from infancy through maturity."
Father: "Are those brown eyes? We were really hoping for blue..."
Mother: "Aren't her legs a little...stumpy?"
Father: "Yeah, too stumpy..."
Doctor: "Well, you know, you can always start over. But I just have to tell you that you're still working with a mix of your own genetics..."
Mother and Father: "So it's our fault? It's our fault? What kind of thing is that to say? What kind of doctor are you?"
Dec '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
While discussing this with my wife we concluded that our dear friend Kayla would flip these people the bird...if she had arms.
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
John Murdoch: Tom Paine/Katievs:
And Katievs--I have a daughter with Down syndrome, and I actively worry about getting "blamed and shamed" for having a child who uses tax dollars for special ed. It will be an issue in 2012: everybody wants to talk about entitlement reform--but no politician in the world is going to take on AARP. Farm subsidies? Not a chance. The big entitlement that's going to get "reformed"? Special ed, and services for the mentally disabled.
I remember hearing of a successful businessman with a down syndrome son saying once, "Since he was born our family has been a school of love, and he is our professor."
One of the things that enthused me about Sarah Palin was her personal witness and political commitment to the value of even "defective" human life.
I love the books and philosophy of Jean Vanier.
Feb '11
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
The parents don't deserve to have children, and the "award" should follow the child to adoptive parents who do.
Dec '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Adam, I don't know where to begin, so I will simply tell you exactly what think. I am a Jew and an Orthodox Jew. I emphasize Orthodox because the vast majority of modern Jews don't know what Jewish Law says much less follow it. If you deeply understand Jewish Law you would realize that 99.99% of modern abortions would not be allowed under it. What happens is that most modern Jews don't know their own faith at all. Meanwhile, many in the Orthodox communtiy who do know obscure or rationalize Jewish Law into oblivion. With so many willing fools ready to buy into Modernity's bypass of Morality on this issue many in the Orthodox community have accepted what they know to be both evil and against their own teaching. I will add that strictly speaking Jewish Law would only allow prevention of the pregnancy in this case if the knowledge of the defect had occured within the first fourty days from conception. Since they are referring to ultrasounds as evidence I doubt this knowledge could have existed here and Jewish Law would automatically dismiss the case. I need 2000 words not 200 for this issue.
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Abortion is not "prevention of pregnancy". It is the deliberate killing of an in-utero baby.
Pregnancy can only be prevented before pregnancy actually occurs, no?
I'd be interested in learning what happens at forty days to change the moral status of the fetus from expendable to not expendable.
Edited on October 19, 2011 at 5:32amDec '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Katievs, I knew very well when I made my comment that I would be in for a long day. However, maybe it's time for it. I will not get into a long discussion of Jewish Law on this website. I think that I have given many a very big hint as to where a major ally in the eventual defeat of Roe v Wade might come from.
What I will do is give you a secular ethical principle of my own making.
"According full humanity and therefore full human rights becomes increasingly difficult the earlier in the pregnancy you look. By the same token Not according humanity and therefore withholding full human rights becomes increasingly difficult the later in the pregnancy you look."
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
James Gawron: What I will do is give you a secular ethical principle of my own making.
"According full humanity and therefore full human rights becomes increasingly difficult the earlier in the pregnancy you look. By the same token Not according humanity and therefore withholding full human rights becomes increasingly difficult the later in the pregnancy you look." · Oct 18 at 9:03pm
The problem with this is that we believe---don't we?---that human dignity and rights are not accorded by us, but rather endowed by the Creator.
We are responsible to protect that dignity and those rights in law. We have no authority to "withhold" human rights from other human beings, no matter how tiny.
Edited on October 19, 2011 at 3:23pmMay '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
Another problem with your principle is that it is utterly impractical: there is no point on the line between earlier and later pregnancy to rationally ground a law.
From the point of view of science, a complete new human being comes into being at the moment of conception. From there, he or she develops steadily and predictably into the baby who is born nine months later.
By what principle and on what grounds do you say he or she may be killed on the 39th day of life but not on the 40th? What happens on that day (you haven't answered) to change his or her moral status from dispensable to indispensable?
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
There is no wrongful birth, what an absurd concept. I come from a family with a profoundly disable sister, and the price we all paid was terrible, as was her suffering. And yes, not all life is worth living without some quality, but the idea that any birth can be wrong is akin to some eugenics ideas, and totalitarianism that rules some more worthy of life than others.
(Just read Tom Paine comments above, so sorry for repeating his ideas again here)
Here in Australia, we had a recent case of two lesbians who sued because they had given birth to twin daughters conceived via IVF and had instructed their doctor that they only wanted one child via the IVF process. I cannot understand how anyone after going through the pain and cost of that process could even arrive at such a decision
I am not a lawyer, but surely theirs is a case of medical negligence with respect to failure to detect the obvious lack of limbs, but not this ridiculous idea of wrongful birth
Edited on October 19, 2011 at 5:37pmDec '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
katievs: Another problem with your principle is that it is utterly impractical: there is no point on the line between earlier and later pregnancy to rationally ground a law.
From the point of view of science, · Oct 19 at 6:42am
I apologize katievs but I could not be at a computer for the last few days and I could not get back to this until now. Let me take up your question. I will answer with two questions of my own.
1) Does life begin 'from the point of view of science' when the first atoms of the first DNA strand touch or when the last atom of the last DNA strand touch?
2) If in the first week the cells haven't differentiated enough to produce one nerve cell then does a functional human brain architecture exist?
Whatever the answers they would not effect the outcome of the case - wrongful birth claim rejected. However, my principle would be enough to put an end to Roe v Wade. We would be forced to apply all that we know to make an ethical rule. That is what is done every day to declare the end of life.
May '10
Re: $4.5 Million Verdict for "Wrongful Birth"
James Gawron
1) Does life begin 'from the point of view of science' when the first atoms of the first DNA strand touch or when the last atom of the last DNA strand touch?
I don't have the expertise to answer this question; nor do I think it relevant to the abortion issue, since there is no practical way to distinguish between this two "moments" in the case of a pregnant woman.
What exists is an absolutely unique and unrepeatable human being, the natural fruit of a reproductive act between a man and a woman, made in God's Image and Likeness and formed by His hand. To destroy it, because its parents don't want it, is to commit a terrible moral crime.