Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Disabled Children Want To Sue Doctors For Being Born
CNSNews ^ | 3/13/02 | Patrick Goodenough

Posted on 03/13/2002 4:49:58 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

An Australian court is hearing a test case that seeks to establish whether children born disabled as a result of medical negligence can sue doctors for "wrongful life."

A lawyer representing doctors in the case has warned that if the court rules in favor of the children's right to sue for damages, then children born with disabilities could eventually end up suing their mothers for not aborting them.

Moreover, Peter Garling warned, successful "wrongful life" cases could prompt doctors to recommend abortions even in cases of minor disability, to safeguard against future lawsuits.

Doctors and parents could be encouraged to practice eugenics, or selective breeding, in their decisions.

Bringing the case in the New South Wales Supreme Court are three children described as "profoundly disabled" since birth.

Medical negligence has not been proven in each case, but the court agreed to go ahead with the landmark case to establish whether -- if negligence is legally established -- the children have a right to damages in their own right.

Alexia Harriton, who is now 20, was born blind, deaf and mentally retarded after her mother was not diagnosed with rubella in the early stages of pregnancy.

Seventeen-month-old baby Keeden Waller, who was conceived through in-vitro fertilization treatment, inherited a clotting disorder from his father. Lawyers say the IVF clinic should have screened the embryos to ensure the one used did not carry the disorder, which has left the baby with cerebral palsy and uncontrolled epilepsy.

The third child, two-year-old Chelsea Edwards, was born -- after a failed vasectomy -- with a rare syndrome whose sufferers can only communicate with a sound like the mewing of a kitten.

Lawyers representing the children argue that had doctors not been negligent, in the first case, the mother would have known she was carrying a retarded child and would have had an abortion; and in the other two cases, the children would not have been conceived in the first place.

The children's lawyers say the complaint is not about the children having been born, but having to suffer disabilities resulting from having been born.

Lawyer Graham Segal, representing Alexia Harriton, said extraordinary care was required as a result of the disabilities.

"If the [doctor's] advice had been accurate, there would have been no economic loss."

Parents are in certain circumstances, such as a case of a failed vasectomy, able to mount "wrongful birth" claims, arguing that their child was born as a result of medical negligence.

But children born disabled in Australia have until now not been able to claim for damages in their own right, despite facing costs of care and treatment throughout their lives.

David Hirsch, lawyer for the Edwards family, acknowledged the court was navigating in unchartered legal waters for Australia, saying a judge had previously dismissed court action on the grounds that "to allow a claim like this one would be saying in effect there would be some lives not worth living."

In 2000, France's highest court awarded damages to a teenager born with severe mental and physical disabilities after his mother contracted rubella during pregnancy.

The case and two other similar ones caused an uproar, and prompted specialists who carry out neo-natal scans to go on strike in protest. French lawmakers early this year voted to overturn the legal ruling which established the "right not to be born."

A "wrongful life" case in Britain in the 1980s was thrown out, with the court ruling that it was impossible to assess damages because that would involve comparing a life with disabilities on one hand, with non-existence on the other.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aussielist; prolife; wrongfullife

1 posted on 03/13/2002 4:49:58 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I think that they should be able to sue, provided they give up all rights to the "wrongful life" and remove themselves from it.
2 posted on 03/13/2002 4:53:06 AM PST by drgnwrks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If they want to sue those responsible they should sue their parents. This needs to be thrown out since they are sueing the wrong people.
3 posted on 03/13/2002 4:53:22 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Look how far we've fallen....
4 posted on 03/13/2002 4:54:00 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
One more reason that plaintiffs and attorneys working on contingency should be liable for defendant cost when they lose. It's fundamentally unfair that the legal system should be structured to allow unlimited free shots like this.
5 posted on 03/13/2002 4:56:33 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Ah, the culture of death demonstrates once again how much it despises children.

Hopefully these children's disabilities will give them one small benefit: that they are unable to realize how much their own parents hate them.

6 posted on 03/13/2002 4:59:47 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drgnwrks
I think that they should be able to sue, provided they give up all rights to the "wrongful life" and remove themselves from it.

Exactly. If someone believes their life is a "wrongful life", then they should end it. Immediately. That would solve the "problem".

7 posted on 03/13/2002 5:01:24 AM PST by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
. . . children born disabled as a result of medical negligence can sue doctors . . .

As if those doing the suing here were in fact the children!

8 posted on 03/13/2002 5:11:39 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Alexia Harriton, who is now 20, was born blind, deaf and mentally retarded after her mother was not diagnosed with rubella in the early stages of pregnancy.

Oh, She wants to sue? I doubt a mentally retarded person thought this up. The problem here, folks, is the LAWYERS. They are truely a blight on society and something needs to be done about them. While I'd like to see Shakespeare's solution, we (the US and Australia) need to inact laws disallowing frivolous lawsuits and stop mutli-million $ contingency fees. These lawsuits are nothing more than trolling for $ on the part of trail attorneys, who, as we all know, have no shame or ethics.

9 posted on 03/13/2002 5:13:24 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
I have never considered that, they work like the government.
10 posted on 03/13/2002 5:21:34 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
An Australian court is hearing a test case that seeks to establish whether children born disabled as a result of medical negligence can sue doctors for "wrongful life."

Nobody is preventing these people from rectifying the situation. Japanese can show them how
11 posted on 03/13/2002 5:38:13 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Sadly, "Wrongful Birth" suits are permitted in some states. Don't know which ones.
12 posted on 03/13/2002 5:42:10 AM PST by Prov1322
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov1322
I know. In some cases it's justified, others it makes no sense. How do we define the criteria other than to put the monetary liability on the plaintiffs?
13 posted on 03/13/2002 5:47:38 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Khepera
If they want to sue those responsible they should sue their parents. This needs to be thrown out since they are sueing the wrong people.

And if sueing the parents doesn't work then they can sue God.
15 posted on 03/13/2002 6:44:51 AM PST by ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
Yes thats a good idea. It makes even more sense than sueing the parents.
16 posted on 03/13/2002 6:53:43 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If you win a wrongful life suit, do they kill you to return to your non-existence. If not, why not?
17 posted on 03/13/2002 7:24:18 AM PST by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Aussie_list;*Pro_life
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
18 posted on 03/13/2002 10:54:30 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson