OT: Planned Parenthood sued for CS; failed abortion

[GrowUp!]

Yes. they may have some responsibility for medical malpractice, but NOT child support..

And, IIRC from reading the story, the state Supreme Court pretty much agreed on that previously (and awarded birthing expenses) on a somewhat similar ruling. I would expect the Court to rule the same. That is IF it even makes it that far since this type of suit must be reviewed first.

 

[You Are Guilty]

There's quite a bit of case law on wrongful life/wrongful birth cases, although this one takes the cake.

Here's one to mull over:

In Burke v Rivo, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in a 4-3 decision, held that the parents of a child born after a failed sterilization procedure could recover damages for the cost of rearing a normal, healthy, but (at least initially) unwanted child, if the reason for seeking sterilization was founded on economic or financial considerations. The benefit, if any, the parents receive from having the child should be offset against the cost of rearing the child. There was no reason founded on sound public policy to immunize a physician from having to pay for a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his negligence, or from a natural and probable consequence of a breach of his guarantee, namely the parents’ expenses of rearing the child to adulthood.

 

[Susie3q]

Age?

Hmm, nowhere did I see that this woman's age was addressed. She was 43 when she gave birth. That means she will be 61 when her little one graduates from High School. Now, being an older mother myself, I can understand a bit about the financial burden involved when you see the light at the end of the tunnel on retirement and it turns out to be a train.

I'm am totally against abortion from a moral standpoint, but I don't think this woman deserves the bashing she is getting. She didn't realize she was still preggo until she was in the middle of labor. So what if she fell in love with the baby at her birth instead of bonding for 9 months of pregnancy. The fact is, she decided early on in the pregnancy that she might want to retire one day and that choice was taken away from her in a country where abortion is LEGAL. So, even though I don't agree with suing for child support, I do hope she gets a million or so on the malpractice and uses it to retire now and raise a healthy happy child.

I don't know about the other moms here, but I had my first one at 20 and my last one at 36, what a huge difference in stamina!!! It's hard to work and raise a child in your twenties and thirties, I can't wait to see what it will be like in my 40's and 50's.

Well, just my opinion, nothing legal. But then a lot of everyone elses posts are just opinions with just a little sprinkling of legal opinion in the mix.

 

[nextwife]

Hmm, nowhere did I see that this woman's age was addressed. She was 43 when she gave birth.

GASP!!!! 43???? THAT old????

What's your point? I'm mom to a nine year old. I'm 52, and my husband is 60.

What about dad? If mom hadn't wanted an abortion, you wouldn't be commiserating how HE may have wanted to retire early. And nobody would be paying HIS share of the cost of raising the child!

My sibling is 45 and will be having a baby. 43 is not at all too old. We're simply WISER than we were at 20 or 30.

BTW: there's a whole community of us geezer parents on the weblist GAARP.

 

[GrowUp!]

I'm am totally against abortion from a moral standpoint, but I don't think this woman deserves the bashing she is getting.

I don't see this woman getting "bashed." Just being criticized for her wanting Planned Parenthood to help supporting this child, since she had other options.

The fact is, she decided early on in the pregnancy that she might want to retire one day and that choice was taken away from her in a country where abortion is LEGAL.

She had another choice, though. Adoption. A choice she clearly chose not to take.

So, even though I don't agree with suing for child support, I do hope she gets a million or so on the malpractice and uses it to retire now and raise a healthy happy child.

How about using it to invest in the CHILD'S FUTURE -- NOT hers. She chose not to put the child up for adoption.

 

[Susie3q]

Gee guys and gals

I don't think we disagree. I am definately a member of the geezer mommy crowd and proud of it. I joined it on purpose and am happy in my decision... But it was my decision, I didn't seek an abortion and I think all of us realize how easy it is to fall in love with a baby planned or unplanned. I don't think the mommy should have to give up her child simply because she didn't plan her. I also think that she made a decision and malpractice plays into the reversal of that decision. I think we are on the same page on most everything.

As far as the daddy goes, I'm agree he has the responsibility to pay CS and be a parent to his child. I didn't say either one of them isn't capable of raising the child. I also didn't say that anyone outside of the parents should have to pay child support....

The point I was making is that it could be a financial burden to raise a child at 43 years old that is unplanned and the mom took steps to terminate the pregnancy which failed. Does that mean she's a BAD mom because she didn't give the child up for adoption? Does that mean the doctors involved should just say "oops" we made a mistake, have a nice day?

Hmmm, if you can sue for squeezing your legs together when you know the coffee is hot, why shouldn't you sue for medical mal-practice when you have a financial burden for a child you love and adore because early on you decided to terminate to avoid the financial burden?

Just saying AGE is a FACTOR that no one seems to see in this case.

 

[mommyof4]

That's because age ISN'T a factor. So, a 21 year old college student would not have as much of a financial burden as a 43 year old woman with a retirement plan? The college student hasn't even begun to SAVE for the retirement account.

I don't disagree with the malpractice aspect. I STRONGLY disagree that she should be awarded child support, for reasons already stated, ad nauseum. But age makes no difference in this matter.

 

[Ohiogal]

that is not necessarily true. She chose at the time of the abortion, not to carry the child to term, she chose at the time of birth not to give the child up for adoption, so quite obviously at that time, she wanted the child. At least one of my own children was not planned, that does not mean that child was not wanted. . . . . after the shock wore off In a perfect world, all children would be wanted, by BOTH parents, all the time, regardless of circumstance, but this isn't a perfect world. I just wonder why, since Dad would be the one held responsible for child support, he wouldn't be the one with the right to sue in this case. OH .... something else for us all to fight about. That grow up, he is just one big ole troublemaker

YAG beat me to it but Look at some of these links:
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/advocacy/wrongfulbirths.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/60minutes/main559472.shtml
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wrongful-conception-birth-and-life-lawyers.html

 

[nextwife]

You know what many posters routinely tell MALE posters who end up parents when they didn't plan to be:

If you have sex, you can end up with a baby. If you don't want the responsibility, you should keep your pants zipped.​

Why should the answer really be any different? The male parent doesn't even HAVE the option. Poor mom - she has a baby she didn't want? Guys live that reality every day and nobody reimburses THEM for ending up a parent when they hadn't bargained for that possibility. Ultimately, if one doesn't want a baby, the proper answer is to make choices that don't put them at risk for pregnancy.

 

[mommyof4]

You know what many posters routinely tell MALE posters who end up parents when they didn't plan to be:

If you have sex, you can end up with a baby. If you don't want the responsibility, you should keep your pants zipped.​

Why should the answer really be any different? The male parent doesn't even HAVE the option. Poor mom - she has a baby she didn't want? Guys live that reality every day and nobody reimburses THEM for ending up a parent when they hadn't bargained for that possibility. Ultimately, if one doesn't want a baby, the proper answer is to make choices that don't put them at risk for pregnancy.

Agreed.

Having said that, the only reason I agree that she should be awarded damages for malpractice is that the surgeon clearly botched the operation. I would feel the same if this was a case of knee surgery. That does not mean that I feel she should be awarded millions of millions of dollars. In fact, I think that any award should be equal with her medical bills from labor and delivery. That's it. Obviously, she wants to keep the child. It would be very difficult to make the case that she will be facing a lifetime of "damages". (Well, aside from the heartache and "wallet" ache ALL kids bring. )

 

[nextwife]

I read one of those links and it makes NO SENSE:

High Court Wants Boy Compensated For Being Born With Down Syndrome
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
November 28, 2001

PARIS, FRANCE--The Cour de Cassation, France's high court of appeals, has ruled that the parents of a boy who has Down syndrome should be compensated because he was born.

The boy, identified in media reports only as Lionel, was born in 1995. His parents then sued the mother's gynecologist because the doctor had not detected during the pregnancy that the boy would be born with Down syndrome.

A court agreed with the parents and ordered the doctor to pay around $100,000 for medical negligence.

Now, the country's highest court has decided that the $100,000 is not enough. The court wants the amount increased substantially because the parents claim they would have had an abortion if they known he would be born with a disability.

The decision reinforces another high court ruling made one year ago. The court ruled last November that Nicola Peruche, who was born with several disabilities, could sue his doctors because they had failed to diagnose that his mother had rubella during the pregnancy. His parents also claimed that they would have had him aborted if they had known he might have disabilities.

Disability rights advocates who are trying to fight the Peruche ruling in the courts were further angered by this new ruling.

"Certain judges in the high court of appeal still think it is better to be dead than handicapped," said activist Xavier Mirabel.

I know for a fact that the ONLY definitive way to know if a fetus has Down's Syndrome is by either CVS or Amnio. Thus if the parents never had either test, how COULD the Down's have been expected to be diagnosed?

And there are a whole host of other abnormalities that wouldn't be known until birth. (we watch Babies- Special Delivery" on Discovery Health Channel and another Baby delivery show on that network)

 

[nextwife]

Agreed.

Having said that, the only reason I agree that she should be awarded damages for malpractice is that the surgeon clearly botched the operation. I would feel the same if this was a case of knee surgery. That does not mean that I feel she should be awarded millions of millions of dollars. In fact, I think that any award should be equal with her medical bills from labor and delivery. That's it. Obviously, she wants to keep the child. It would be very difficult to make the case that she will be facing a lifetime of "damages". (Well, aside from the heartache and "wallet" ache ALL kids bring. )

I agree there. AS a parent who went out and SPENT many thousands for the privilege of being a mom and getting my child out of the orphanage, it's hard to accept anyone arguing that getting to have a child in itself creates "damages". Being a parent is a PRIVILEGE that not all people get to experience.

Damages proportionate to the loss experienced.

 

[TigerD]

Nextwife may not have said it nicely, but is perfectly right. The lady made her choice, she gets to pay for it.

 

[qurice]

When my wife was pregnant with my youngest, the screens indicated there could be an issue. After scaring her half to death (this was her first child) it turned out to be nothing. She was offered an amnio but declined it.

So then what happens when the doctor's DO give an indication that there is a problem, and then the mom ends up aborting a healthy fetus. Then do they sue for "Wrongful Abortion"? Geez..

 

[critterperson]

Okay I have to chime in...I am pro-choice BUT, could you imagine this child growing up knowing that its mother sued someone because they didn't succeed in killing you? Wow, she may need the money just for therapy for this child I saw another case similar to this one, and the Mother was suing because the doctor incorrectly dated her pregnancy so when she decided to have an abortion it was too late...It took the jury in her civil trial against the doctor only 6 minutes to award her nothing...