Thread: Couple awarded $2.9 million for the birth of their Down Syndrome child

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

I'm pro-choice with exceptions and one exception to my pro-choice views is I do NOT support abortion due to disabilities or disorders. . . by the time any child is that developed I'm at the point of opposing abortion.

They said "we would have aborted her if we knew - now we want money for forcing us to bear a child who we should have killed, pay up" - obviously they don't love her. Obviously they loath her, see her as a burden, a mere inconvenience - a curse. I think they're a risk to her and to leave her in their care is insane. I don't think they remotely care for her. If you care about your children you don't use them to snaggle millions because you didn't abort them.

I'm pro-choice because I've seen what people do when they have children they don't want and don't love and don't give a **** about. She's better off without them - they should be permitted to find her an adopting family or other such living arragements.

Leave them with her? She's doomed to suffer endlessly and be tortured and maltreated due to their cancerous spite of her. Don't tell me that now they've been financially 'compensated for their misery' they'll look at her and be happy with her.

You are wrong.

And let me get this straight. You're ProChoice. But not if the child is disabled. What a crock. It's either a woman's choice because it's her body...or it's not. Oh, and it's not okay if the child is disabled/retarded, but it's perfectly okay if it's a perfect little baby. Well, I've just lost your thought process entirely.

Nonetheless, Auntie, I think you have absolutely positively jumped to a horrid conclusion.

What would you have said to my mom if you were me? (I never have nor will say anything.) You? Will you call her a heartless bitch who was forced to bear a child she did not want?? Tell her she couldn't possibly have loved me? Tell her I should have been given over to foster care? What?

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

My parents discussed abortion. I was an oops-baby. Does it bother me? Not in the slightest.

I didn't exist at the time when they were having that discussion. They were not discussing killing me the human being, their daughter. They were discussing aborting some tissue that would eventually develop enough to house me. There's a big difference between those two things. And the fact that they had that discussion did not result in them being unloving once I actually existed.

Had they chosen abortion, it's not as though I'd ever know the difference, because again, there was no me. It's not like I could feel one way or the other about having never existed. Having children is not a decision to take lightly. Frankly, good on them for discussing all their options when they found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy on their hands.

The doctor lied to them about the health of the pregnancy. He either saw that the fetus had Down's and lied directly, or didn't look/didn't do the test and lied blindly. Either way, hiding or fabricating medical information is not ok. And yes, they have the right to make informed decisions about a pregnancy. Especially since they requested information, were lied to, and the result of that lie is that they are going to have a much heavier financial burden than they planned on.

Couldn't agree more, says one Oops to another.

Those pre-natal tests do have a noticable misdiagnosis rate - absolutely they do. The parents, I guess, were too dumb to pay attention to the risks and accuracy rates. Did they even know of the risks of the actual testing procedures?



Obviously - I might be pro-choice but I oppose 100% aborting a baby because it's a little different. Sown Syndrome isn't the end of the world - these parents are scum. I'm disgusted in general at the concept of abortion for genetic 'imperfections' - I think it's twisted. . . not the reason why I support limited abortion in the first few weeks. . .not to mention that the pure time at which such 'horrible news' is discovered - it's much to late for an abortion in my view unless it's truly a life-or-death situation.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

Those pre-natal tests do have a noticable misdiagnosis rate - absolutely they do. The parents, I guess, were too dumb to pay attention to the risks and accuracy rates. Did they even know of the risks of the actual testing procedures?



Obviously - I might be pro-choice but I oppose 100% aborting a baby because it's a little different. Sown Syndrome isn't the end of the world - these parents are scum. I'm disgusted in general at the concept of abortion for genetic 'imperfections' - I think it's twisted. . . not the reason why I support limited abortion in the first few weeks. . .not to mention that the pure time at which such 'horrible news' is discovered - it's much to late for an abortion in my view unless it's truly a life-or-death situation.

If the woman was over 37 years old, amneo was recommended. You've made me think of something, though. I wonder if the doctor was ProLife, so gave her incorrect information...

You would say, "Yay!!!" I would say, "Give them $2.9 million for the lies and to help them care for the little girl."

Auntie, we hardly ever disagree! Well, *smiling* I guess this is #412.

Edit: Accuracy rate: 99.4-100% accuracy. Test done at 15 weeks. http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/melb_u...tesis_melb.htm

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

Those pre-natal tests do have a noticable misdiagnosis rate - absolutely they do. The parents, I guess, were too dumb to pay attention to the risks and accuracy rates. Did they even know of the risks of the actual testing procedures?



Obviously - I might be pro-choice but I oppose 100% aborting a baby because it's a little different. Sown Syndrome isn't the end of the world - these parents are scum. I'm disgusted in general at the concept of abortion for genetic 'imperfections' - I think it's twisted. . . not the reason why I support limited abortion in the first few weeks. . .not to mention that the pure time at which such 'horrible news' is discovered - it's much to late for an abortion in my view unless it's truly a life-or-death situation.

You don't understand much about Down's.

Down's children are not simply "a little bit different." They tend to die young, due to a variety of different illnesses, many of which are extremely debilitating over time. A fairly significant chunk of them need major surgery immediately after birth. Their life expectancy is cut in half. But the last 10 years are usually riddled with illness and disability.

I am not arguing in favor of eugenics. But I completely understand the mentality of not wanting to put your child through that. I believe that is a decision filled with sympathy. And yes, also practicality. But if you can't practically afford a child who will require so much more money and time than a typical child, what is the sense in giving birth to them? You can't simply wish yourself to have more money and time than you do. All the love in the world won't put food on the table.

I also don't understand how you can support elective abortion of healthy fetuses, but be disgusted by aborting unhealthy fetuses because they are unhealthy. So you're saying that having some mercy is morally reprehensible, and deciding you just don't want to deal with a baby right now isn't? How does that logic train work out?

Originally Posted by StillBallin75

How was it the physician's fault? No form of testing is 100% accurate, unless they can somehow show that he administered the test in an incompetent manner.

From what I've been able to gather from researching this on more neutral websites, they tested the mother's tissue by mistake and not the fetus'. Neither the doctor who collected the sample, nor the lab that analyzed it noticed the error. Additionally, the parents were told on two separate occasions during ultrasounds that they had nothing to worry about and the baby was normal. The problem is that there apparently were definite signs that were missed by the ultrasound technicians and that could be indications of Down's Syndrome. I'd say there was plenty of incompetency to go around.

The little girl is now 4 years old and experts predict she could live well into her late 40s, early 50s and that there's no way she can ever take care of herself. Her parents and her two brothers love her and she seems to be a happy child. I'm not going to judge these people. I have no idea what I would do in their place if I was faced with the financial burden of making sure my daughter gets proper care when I'm too old to provide it. According to their lawyer, their reasons for suing are to make sure that she gets the special care she'll always need. The money is not for them. It's for her.

Many downs syndrome folks can and do grow up to become productive adults who work, love, even have children..depending on the severity.

Personally, I think those parents were looking for a quick buck.

Pro-choice here.

This case is one of the "wrongful birth" cases that are seldom discussed (kids themselves can sometimes sue for "wrongful life"). The implication that they are asking for and getting money for luxury is a criticism they will have to face. The reality is that the settlement will go to support the child and her needs.

It is a reality of technology and medicine that we are capable of predicting many many characteristics before a child is born. The questions come when we start using those predictions to guide our decision making -- is it ethical? That is something everyone will have to answer for themselves. I do not think wrongful birth cases are out and out wrong, as long as the money goes to support the child and there was obvious negligence on the part of the medical team.

The one thought that has always nagged at me about wrongful birth cases is what will the child think/feel when it is explained to them or they find out about it? The claim is that theirs is a "wrongful" life, I can't imagine what could make a child feel worse.

As devil's advocate...who would tell the child??

Originally Posted by taxigirl

It is a reality of technology and medicine that we are capable of predicting many many characteristics before a child is born. The questions come when we start using those predictions to guide our decision making -- is it ethical?

Here's a better question: Why wouldn't it be ethical?

You're pro-choice, so I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't buy into the notion that abortion is "killing a baby." Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

So a ZEF isn't a baby. That being the case, why would it be unethical? Aborting because you find out the fetus has X characteristic is not impacting any thinking, feeling being. Something which has no impact on anyone else is morally neutral, and arguing otherwise is quite difficult.

Especially in a case like this, where abortion would prevent the now-existent thinking, feeling being from suffering for the rest of their life, either due to their illness or due to their parents being unable to meet their needs. In a case like this, one could certainly argue abortion could be altruistically motivated.

While you can argue that, say, sex-based abortion is problematic, here's another thing to consider: Is it better for the fetus to be aborted by a bigoted couple and never become a human being, or is it better for them to be born and suffer at the hands of parents who are bigoted against them? Which one of those things does more damage? Does the former do any damage at all?

The one thought that has always nagged at me about wrongful birth cases is what will the child think/feel when it is explained to them or they find out about it? The claim is that theirs is a "wrongful" life, I can't imagine what could make a child feel worse.

I imagine that would depend on the individual. You've got two people on this thread who know that at least one of their parents wanted to abort the ZEF that eventually became us, but neither myself nor Maggie are bothered by it at all.

From one of the articles:

According to several studies, 89 percent or more of expectant mothers who learned their children would have Down syndrome chose to terminate the pregnancies.

...

The Levys were the parents of two young boys when in November 2006 they were surprised to learn Deborah Levy was pregnant again. Because she was 34, she and her husband were concerned about the possibility of genetic disorders. Experts testified that about 1 in 250 women that age give birth to a baby with Down syndrome. A first-trimester screening estimated Deborah Levy's chances were even higher: 1 in 130.

Roughly 13 weeks into her pregnancy, Deborah Levy went to Legacy's Center for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in North Portland, where Dr. Thomas Jenkins performed a prenatal test called chorionic villus sampling, or CVS for short. A Legacy lab tested a small amount of tissue that the doctor had removed from Levy's womb. The results showed the Levy's daughter had a normal chromosomal profile.

Although in the following weeks two ultrasounds showed abnormalities that sometimes indicate Down syndrome, the Levys testified they were assured that their daughter would not have the chromosomal abnormality. Legacy staff did not advise them to get an amniocentesis, which is another prenatal test that detects Down syndrome.

Within a week of their daughter's birth, they were devastated to find out that the girl, Kalanit, did indeed have Down syndrome.

The Levys contended that Dr. Thomas Jenkins removed maternal tissue -- not fetal tissue -- during the CVS procedure. The suit alleged that Jenkins and lab workers didn't recognize that the tissue was from the mother.

There's no indication of unloving parents, only an incompetent doctor.