" Wrongful Birth "

Post Reply New Topic

Parents awarded $2.9M in ‘wrongful birth’ lawsuit over daughter born with Down syndrome
Couple sued for the money to take care of their child's condition


A Portland, Ore. couple was awarded $2.9 million on Friday for the care of their Down syndrome baby, who they argue would not have been born if doctors had not been "negligent” in their pre-natal care.

Ariel and Deborah Levy won their "wrongful birth" suit against Legacy Health System, arguing they chose to continue their pregnancy based on what doctors told them, according to ABC News, and would have terminated it if they had not been assured their baby did not have the genetic condition.

Jurors found five instances of Legacy Health's negligence, including a doctor's finding that the baby had a normal chromosomal profile based on a test that was performed and analyzed incorrectly.

Thirteen weeks into Deborah Levy's pregnancy, according to The Oregonian, her doctor tested a sample of tissue and concluded the baby did not have any chromosomal problems. Even though later tests suggested it might have Down syndrome, doctors assured the family that nothing was wrong.

A week after the baby was born, the Levys discovered their baby did in fact have Down syndrome. The doctor had taken a sample of the wrong kind of tissue, according to the lawsuit - a mistake that was never caught.

They also argued the doctors were "negligent in their performance, analysis and reporting" of their daughter's test results after she was born.

The child is now four years old.

"It's been difficult for them," the family's lawyer David K. Miller told KATU-TV. "There's been a lot of misinformation out there.

“These are parents who love this little girl very, very much,” Miller said. “Their mission since the beginning was to provide for her and that’s what this is all about.”

The Levy family originally sued for $7 million to cover the costs of care for their daughter over her lifetime.

While the parents chose not to comment after the verdict, the health care company hit back at the decision in a statement.

“While Legacy Health has great respect for the judicial process, we are disappointed in today’s verdict," the statement read. "The legal team from Legacy Health will be reviewing the record and considering available options."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/he...z1ovUEPPWF

wrongful birth??? So it a crime to have downs syndrome??

Must be. Some parents are just not willing to sacrifice, for something they dont deem to be 'perfect'.

I honestly don't know what to think about all this.

However on the plus side, people with downs syndrome have got to be the happiest people on the planet.
I have known a few and they have warm bubbly personalities.

While I feel that that the doctor kept that information from them because he was pro-life, and the hospital may well been pro-life too, look on the bright side, they will have a happy child that will never really grow up. How many parents have you heard them say, "They are so sweet, I wish they will always stay little children" Well with a down's baby, you got the wish of a million parents!

It could be worse, imagine being the mother of Jeffery Dauhmer

Now I bet his mother has the right to sue for wrongful birth!

Jojo

the unknown factor is do these parents actually feel negatively toward their daughters existence, which i don't know because i do not know these people, based on the article, they love her very very much.

the term 'wrongful birth' could have simply been used as a legal tool, which i'm relatively certain is the only reason for this word. I would be surprised if they used this to describe their daughter outside the courtroom.

i really kind of think good for them for winning this money to use to care for their daughter. if the company providing poor service anyway, they 'deserved' the consequence. I think you are getting bogged down with the way the lawsuit sounds, but i really think is just the angle they had to take to pursue the suit, to be awarded the money.

perhaps they are selfish in wanting the money, and it is for them personally to be wealthy. I have no way to know one way or the other but i would more likely assume it is the other way.

I hope that girl never finds out.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/parents-awarded-2-9m-wrongful-birth-lawsuit-daughter-born-syndrome-article-1.1037159

I couldn't get the link above to work. Here is another one.

Not a crime to have a downs syndrome child, but it's not the first time that a malpractice suit has been brought for "wrongful birth" or "wrongful miscarriage", because of negligence in prenatal testing.

I've never heard of these terms, and wondered if they were real legal terms, until I looked them up to try to determine what the laws were on this, as linked below.

What's more interesting below in the link from Wiki is that doctor's have an ethical responsibility to keep abreast of the development of improved prenatal testing as it becomes available, or they might be sued for malpractice, for failing to provide information that the newer tests exist as a safer/more effective option.

My understanding is that the doctor performed testing on the wrong type of tissue. That's not really an ethical/moral issue, it's one of negligence. Doctor's are human; they make mistakes, and pay extremely high rates of malpractice insurance, to accommodate those mistakes.

It's a given that the overwhelming majority of Down's pregnancies end in abortion. That appears to be the salient moral/ethical issue, that is not specific to this incident.

The "prenatal testing" provides an ability for the legal choice of abortion for Down's pregnancies, but it also saves lives as well for those children with Down's syndrome with heart defects that are detected early. The proper staff and facility during the child's birth can make the difference in survival.

The legality of abortion, is a question of ethics that can be a result of a topic like this, but it's predictable how that would turn out, minds aren't often changed by that verbal debate.

45% of the country recently polled in the US reported they were pro-life. If 90% of Down's pregnancies end in abortion, it appears a significant number of individuals change their position, when faced with the actual decision.


For those that are opposed to legal abortion of Down's pregnancies, this is a good news story, because without the negligence, this child would have been part of that statistic. There appears to be no question about that.

If the money is put to good use for the child during the full course of that lifetime, it is cause for joy for the child.

And, hopefully the parents do truly love the child as it is reported that they do; that's the most important part. It probably makes a difference in those individuals with Down's syndrome that are full of positive emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_diagnosis

she has down syndrome, so this is probably far outside her capacity to understand. you could probably directly tell her and she would not 'find out'.

the money they obtained really will be helpful in supporting everything they could financially use to care for her, so what does it matter what the terminology is in court, especially it being something she will probably never be able to comprehend, and this not make a negative interpretation of

and this does not necessarily mean she even would have actually aborted, you can state one thing for its legal significance in certain possible situations, but not be bound to actually carrying it out, had the medical personell correctly administered and analyzed their tests

It could be that these parents knew that they might not be emotionally or fiscally fit enough to raise a disabled child. That is why they tried so hard to find out if anything was wrong, so that they could terminate their pregnancy. I can understand why they're upset and I think they deserved to sue, especially to get money to help raise this child. Raising a child with a disability takes an enormous emotional and financial toll on the parents, regardless of how happy/ smart/ delightful the child may be. I think if more people were cognizant of their limitations as far as their ability to parent and under what circumstances there would be far fewer abused and murdered children and probably fewer abortions as people who realized that they were not capable of being parents under certain circumstances would choose not to become pregnant. I know that many people on this site are very upset by the idea of potentially disabled children being aborted. But reality is that not all parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, or the system can deal with the demands of raising a disabled child, and some of these "children" will need lifelong care. There are already so many disabled children and adults that are abused or who do not receive proper care. I think that people who want to demonize parents who choose not to give birth to a disabled child need to try to see the bigger picture (kind of funny, I know) and understand that it's not always that these parents don't want "a burden", it's that they know that they are not capable of taking on that kind of responsibility.

I think a lot of the controversy about this case stems from the label "wrongful birth".
This is a case of doctor error/negligence.
The parents paid for a test, and the test wasn't performed properly. The doctor/hospital is responsible.
That said, I wonder if the parents would have gotten such a large settlement if they said they would not have chosen abortion. I think the settlement should remain the same, regardless of the intentions they claim they had. There is no proof of what they would have done, anyway. Even they can't be certain how they would have felt if they'd actually known.

Yeeaaah

Wrongful birth is a stupid idea, yeah the parents need more money for the care but sueing a hospital for "wrongful birth" and ending up with over a million is just ridiculous.
It's like people with downs shouldn't even be alive, and if one is unexpectedly born legal action should be taken because they'd be terminated otherwise. Horrid.
And people do make mistakes and things can't always be picked up, I was supposed to have spinabifida according to the tests and I turned out fine. The genetic testing isn't always perfect, so if this girl was normal but they'd mistaken her for a downs person while still in the womb they'd abort without knowing for sure first???

Agreed. I was also supposed to have been born with Spinabifida at one stage, then it was Down's Syndrome. Again, I was born with none of these.

And why should someone with Down's Syndrome be aborted anyway? They can and do live functional, happy lives. I'm not against abortion, and I know that sometimes it's the best result in a bad situation, but it's not necessary or fair in this case.

Blah blurghh. I don't like to get too involved in these sorts of debates anyway, I've stated my opinion, now I'll be off elsewhere to talk about things I like. Makes sense.

I smell a rat. Obviously, the Levy's aren't putting the child up for adoption. I doubt that they would have ever aborted the fetus - they just want the money to care for the child for the rest of her life.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

To me, the legal calculus is pretty clear:

1) The doctor erred.
2) The doctor gave the parents incorrect advice based on erroneous findings.
3) The parents relied upon that advice and took decisions accordingly.

The parents investigated specifically for chromosomal abnormality, and now find themselves faced with a financial obligation as a result of chromosomal abnormality that they were assured was not present. This looks like a slam dunk for liability on the part of the physician and it is precisely the reason that we carry malpractice insurance.

I think that it is pretty careless to start throwing about terms like, "wrongful birth," since it politicizes what should be a strictly judicial decision.

I also think that it is wrong to turn this into an argument about Down's. There are enormous medical-legal ethics questions around screening for Down's and terminating pregnancies as a result. But in this case it is clear that the parents would have had the legal option to abort had the analysis been correctly undertaken and communicated to them. Whether we agree with the termination of these pregnancies are not is secondary to the circumstances of these parents for whom that would have been an option.