Posted on 04/09/2009 7:23:43 PM PDT by freespirited
SPERM should be subject to the same product liability laws as car brakes, according to a US judge who has given a teenager with severe learning disabilities the go-ahead to sue the sperm bank that provided her with a biological father.
Brittany Donovan, now 13 years old, was born with fragile X syndrome, a genetic disorder causing mental impairment and carried on the X chromosome. She is now suing the sperm bank, Idant Laboratories of New York, under a product liability law more commonly associated with manufacturing defects, such as faulty car brakes.
Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury. "It doesn't matter how much care was taken," says Daniel Thistle, the lawyer representing Donovan, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Genetic tests have revealed that she inherited the disorder from her biological father.
Donovan was conceived in Pennsylvania, where a "blood shield law" protects sellers of human bodily material from product liability suits. In New York state, however, sellers are not protected by any such law. On 31 March, federal judge Thomas O'Neill ruled that Donovan's case should be tried in New York.
Wendy Kramer of the Donor Sibling Registry, which helps people conceived through donor gametes find genetic relatives, suspects other sperm recipients may try to sue. "This could open the floodgates," she says.
O. M. G.
Next step: Suing your parents for inhereted birth defects.
Gee, what a great incentive to abort any less-than-perfect child.
If sperm is a product, then there must be consumer protection. Right? Why not? She paid for it (it’s expensive!), she was led to believe there is certain quality standard met, and it was all wrong. Now, science 13 years ago couldn’t detect this faulty X gene thing, OR if it was stated clearly that the sperm sold does not have that test performed, then sperm bank shouldn’t be held responsible.
Anyway, I know many of you here will disagree, but I think sperm bank is 1000 times better than nasty (ex)husband.
Can’t wait for the mandatory “recall”... That’ll go over well. LOL
Mike
She’s female and XX. One X from the sperm bank, one from Mom. If I were on a jury I’d need to be shown that the bad X came from the bank, not from the mom.
If she were male with a Y defect it’s a slam-dunk.
“Perhaps the most complicated part of the inheritance of fragile X syndrome is that the FMR1 gene can be unstable, which leads to frequent changes (mutations).
Most genes have a very low rate of mutation. The majority of individuals who inherit a disease have at least one parent who is a carrier for that disease since new mutations are rare.
In contrast, once the FMR1 gene changes from stable (standard) to unstable (premutation), it has a high probability of mutating from one generation to the next. Thus, there can be a family with no history of fragile X syndrome in which it suddenly appears in a number of offspring.”
So the mutation could have been in the mom’s X.
The sperm bank can do sequencing and history studies to see if the bad X was theirs- if they do it right they can invoke the infallibility that people expect from DNA forensic work.
OK, recall and destroy the defective product, (Brittany) and issue the mother a refund with interest for the sperm. I'll bet she didn't even purchase an extended warranty.
Genetic tests have revealed that she inherited the disorder from her biological father.
The coding is labile, it could have been in the mom’s egg. The mutation can “suddenly turn up”.
The sperm bank is going to have to do sequencing, assuming they kept QC samples, or if the same donor was used more than once, do PCR on the other progeny.
It is all going to depend on voire dire weeding out anyone with a science background.
I ain't volunteering to dip that bucket!
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
if she were made natural, could she sue mom?
So is the resulting person also a product, subject to property laws? (Hint: this is not a trick question).
What? And to think, I gave it away free for years!
I dont think so (but I’m not a lawyer so this is an unqualified opinion).
If she were “made natural,” the situation would not involve a purchased product with a quality guarantee of some kind.
As usual, it looks like the key is money changing hands. Mom BOUGHT the sperm, and the sperm bank apparently bragged about how well it screens the donors. So I guess the lawsuit is that the claim of quality was false, the product was “defective.”
Unlike this judge, I disagree that the child was injured by the sperm. She may not be what her mother hoped she would be, but with help from the fertility docs, the sperm was able to develop into a term infant. So in that sense it was hardly defective.
If Brittany didn’t receive this defective sperm, she wouldn’t even be alive at all.
All of us are the product of a specific sperm cell and a specific egg cell. If that allegedly defective sperm didn’t fertilize the egg, then this particular person wouldn’t have been born. She wouldn’t be here to file a lawsuit in the first place.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.