Exactly.

If they are suing on the grounds that they "should never have been born", then shouldn't they be suing their mother?....

The doctors are not to blame. It was not their choice. They were simply doing their job.

A bizarre case, to be sure.

I also agree that it smells like exploitation by an opportunistic scumbag lawyer... If they are so severely mentally disabled, then where did they get the idea for this highly unusual lawsuit?

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

The allegation was that the doctors' negligence kept the mothers in the dark about their diseases. If those allegations are true, then how would the mothers know whether to have abortions?How do you know that? There is nothing in the posted article to support your statement.

The court ruled that there was no claim, regardless of whether the doctors were negligent. This is what the court said in Ms. Harriton's case: "There is no practical possibility of a court (or jury) ever apprehending or evaluating, or receiving proof of, the actual loss or damage as claimed by the appellant. It cannot be determined in what sense Alexia Harriton's life with disabilities represents a loss, deprivation or detriment compared with non-existence."

The court made no finding either way about whether the doctors were negligent, so how do you know they were doing their jobs?These two unfortunate people did not come up with the idea for anything. The lawsuits were brought on their behalf by parents or fiduciaries, which is why is it unfair to judge their motivations without knowing more information. A fiduciary is required by the law to have a single-minded focus on what's best for the person under their care. A fiduciary cannot worry that others might find the lawsuit to be offensive.

By the way, if those scumbag lawyers were working on a contingency, which would be customary in the US, then they made a grand total of zero dollars in return for a monumental amount of work.

Because it was the doctors' job to provide medical assistance during the delivery of a baby/babies. Whether or not to actually HAVE the baby is NOT the doctor's decision, or responsibility.

Since the plaintiffs are currently living and breathing, then the doctors apparently must have done their jobs, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea of holding the doctor responsible for a debilitating condition that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the birthing process (nor was it caused by any other action on the part of the doctor) is ludicrous.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

The doctors' care was not limited to delivery. They treated the mothers during their pregnancies. Here's a quote from the article:The lawsuits had nothing to do with what the doctors did during delivery. Who said otherwise? The only one who can make that decision is the mother, but she has the right to rely on the information she gets from her doctors.Fortunately, no legal system in the free world agrees with you on that one.It might be a losing argument, but it is not ludicrous. What I find more troubling than the arguments attempted by these plaintiffs is that the doctors escape liablity regardless of whether they provided proper care. Where's the justice in that?

It's a close call. IMHO.

Ridiculous.

The conditions endured by these plaintiffs, how ever unfortunate, were INHERITED, and had NOTHING to do with any action taken by the doctors, or a lack thereof.

Additionally, there is no way to prove that "being born" somehow constitutes a "loss", compared to "not being born". This is an impossible comparison to make.

Nor is there any way to prove what effect that different actions, diagnoses, advice, or whatever, on the part of the doctors may theoretically have had upon the decision of the parents. Any discussion of such a thing is pure speculation, nothing more. The mother can SAY that she would have made "decision X" instead of "decision Y" if she had been given different advice or information, but that proves nothing. She made the decision that she made, and she alone is liable for it.

It is quite clear-cut, and obviously the courts involved in the case agree with me.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

That statement is correct but irrelevant. Nobody claims that these doctors injured the babies. The claim is that if the doctors had not been negligent, then the babies (one of whom is now an adult) would have avoided a lifetime of suffering and expense. I believe that most courts reject that legal theory and those courts probably got it right.I think that's right, but it's not an easy call.I would think you would want to hear the evidence before rejecting it. I agree that there is a danger of Monday-morning quarterbacking in this type of case, but the same is true in any case when a patient claims that he or she did not give informed consent to a medical procedure. Are you saying that those people should not be allowed to seek compensation?Those courts did agree with you, but there were dissenting votes at both levels of appeal, which makes the issue appear less clear-cut than you would like it to be. Other courts have ruled the other way. Even conservative old Virginia recognizes claims similar to the claims rejected by the Australian Court. Do a little googling, and you will see that many people continue to struggle with an issue that you find to be so clear-cut. I think you come on on the correct side of the issue, but I don't agree that the arguments on the other side are ridiculous.

Here's one article I found where a Canadian court approved a wrongful life claim (the mother in this one sounds really cold):

Judge Orders Doctor To Pay Parents Over Daughter's Birth
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
January 31, 2003

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--A Supreme Court justice ruled this week that a physician must pay a divorced couple $325,000 ($214,00 US) for the "distress and expense" of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome.

Justice Michael Catliff determined that Dr. Ken Kan was negligent when he did not order an amniocentesis test for Lui-Ling "Lydia" Zhang, of Vancouver, which likely would have found that her unborn daughter, Sherry, had Down syndrome. Zhang has said that she would have aborted her pregnancy had she known that before the baby was born in April 1997.

Dr. Kan was ordered to pay $10,000 in damages to Zhang and $315,000 in damages and living costs to Simon Fung, the father with whom 5-year-old Sherry now lives in Los Angeles, California. Justice Catliff explained that the award would have been higher, but he cut the amount in half because the parents contributed to the situation themselves.

The attorney representing Zhang and Fung said his clients will likely appeal the decision and argue for a larger award.

During a 15-day trial in November, Zhang said that Fung could not accept that she had given birth to a child with a mental disability. Having Sherry "totally disrupted our plans," she explained. The couple's one-month-old marriage then began to fall apart, Zhang said.

Zhang has seen Sherry just eight times in the last five years.

So what's next????

I was born with red hair and freckles and was picked on during my early childhood so I now suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome....Lets sue my parents....

My IQ isn't high and I am not smart enough to become a nuclear engineer.....Lets sue my parents....

My cerebral cortex is not developed enough to become a major league baseball player....Lets sue my parents...

My mother had breast cancer so I may be genetically predisposed, If I get it, I'll sue.....

I have Adhd....Lets sue my parents...

And on and on and on.

Yea, I know go ahead and blast away, but talk about a slippery slope.

I really feel bad for those individuals. I wish them well and hope they do receive the care needed, God knows they deserve it. But as somebody already said, it's pretty obvious that they had a lot of help in coming up with this.

__________________
I really gets fun when they all don't run

84 500SL
99 Jeep XJ
93 Jeep YJ
03 Custom Softail

What do you mean "blast away"? Why would anyone want to blast away?

I don't think it's a slippery slope issue. The cases dismissed by the Australian court differ from your examples because the Australian cases alleged negligence by the doctors. Your examples allege undesirable outcomes unrelated to anybody's negligence.I don't see why people object to having parents, guardians, and lawyers advocating for these people.

Dculkin, The article about the B.C. case you posted is really alarming to me and seems much more serious than the Australian case I found. That award is totally absurd IMHO. So what if the girl has Down's Syndrome? It doesn't mean caring for her will be particualrly expensive and it doesn't mean her life will be worth less than anyone else's. If you ask me, this ruling is an insult to anyone with Down's Syndrome and anyone who cares about someone with Down's Syndrome. If the parents really wanted that test conducted they should have asked for it; the fact that it exists is common knowledge, in my experience. And if that woman was over 35 and didn't know about it, then frankly I think she should have done a lot more research into what pregnancy and child bearing entail.

Let me assure anyone reading this that if you ever find out that you're child-to-be will have Down's Syndrome and you choose to keep that child, you will not regret it. People with Down's Syndrome and similar disabilities are much more capable today than they were years ago because school systems are now required to give them a real education. If you take a 50-year-old and a 20-year-old with a similar level of mental disability, you will find that the 20-year-old is much more independent and much more knowledgable in general because they have been given chances they wouldn't have had until very recently.

In my experience, the smartest people are rarely the best ones and the people with the lowest IQ's are rarely the worst. I really don't think it's very smart to make a decision on whether or not to keep a child on this basis alone.

I guess as a caveat I would add that the child involved in the case may need more medical attention than I'm assuming, but even still Medicaid would pick up this cost now that she lives in the states.

Thank you for posting that article, BTW. I would appreciate other links and info. about similar cases if you have them.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

Exactly.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Exactly, once again.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to present their case....

But if their case is found to have no merit, or is merely an obvious money-grab, then the judge/jury should have the right to laugh them right out of the courtroom.

And if I were the defendant, I would slap them with a counter-suit to recover my legal costs, lost income, as well as compensation for damage to my professional reputation, etc.

The Canadian case you referenced is also a weak one, in my opinion.

Are doctors in Canada required by law to administer tests for EVERY POSSIBLE birth defect that could theoretically occur? If not, then how was the doctor negligent? If parents want tests run for EVERY inherited condition that their unborn baby might potentially be afflicted with, then they should be responsible for requesting (and PAYING for) such extensive tests.

From reading what you posted about that case, I feel that the court made the WRONG decision.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

I agree with that 100%.

I don't know anything about Canada, except I enjoyed my visit to Ontario, but I think it is universally accepted in the US that doctors are required to exercise "reasonable prudence." That's one reason why med mal cases are so difficult to prove.I tend to agree, but I am glad I am not being called upon to make that decision. I am not sure how I would feel about it if I studied the issue in greater detail.

On second thought, maybe it is a slippery slope. As Maroon300D stated so well, a risk of Downs Syndrome seems like a poor reason to terminate a pregnancy. None of these types of cases are going anywhere unless a doctor was negligent, but there is still the question of which pre-natal scenarios justify abortion and which don't.