quote: A blind and deaf Australian woman who claims she never should have been born is suing a doctor for a lifetime of suffering in the country's first "wrongful life" suit.
Alexia Harriton, 24, is seeking compensation from the doctor who misdiagnosed rubella in the first trimester of her mother's pregnancy, claiming Olga Harriton would have aborted her had she been aware of the potential birth defects arising from the illness.
<snip>
A similar claim had greater success in California, where the state appeals court found that a testing laboratory was responsible for the medical costs associated with the care of a child whose parents were not informed of the potential for a certain genetic disease being passed onto the fetus.
So many issues here. Let's brainstorm:
Parents openly regretting the birth of their child
Placing a dollar value on non-existence
Hating your life so much that you sue your doctor, but for some reason not commiting suicide
I'm sure there's plenty more. See what you can come up with!
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
1. I see parents regretting that thier child was born without the opportunities they would have wanted for her.
2. Why don't we call it placing a dollar value on withholding information and/or malpractice? Forget the fact that it's a "wrongful life" case; what the doctor did was WRONG.
3.
quote: Hating your life so much that you sue your doctor, but for some reason not commiting suicide
[my emphasis]
I'm sorry, if I abide by Hatrack's user agreement I can't say what I would very much like to say about this idea. Foust, perhaps you could elaborate a little on this last idea so I would be able to know whether to get angry or to let some poor phrasing slide.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My favorite issue is placing a dollar value on non-existance. The California suit makes more sense, since it was costs the parents would have avoided if the doctor had made the correct diagnosis. Although I think the doctor should be allowed to countersue for the value the child brought to the parents, which they would have missed out on if they'd aborted it.
I wonder, would the Australian woman call it even if the doctor simply revoked her life? If she truly feels her existence itself deserves recompense, logically (to me) it means she believes she is worth more to herself dead than alive. And so it is odd that she hasn't ended her own life, if she really feels that way.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It is very sad, indeed, that this woman sees her entire life as a burden. My husband has severe disabilities, and as a nurse, I work with people who have severe disabilities. People can lead meaningful, worthwhile lives, able-bodied or not, or people can lead miserable, unfulfilling lives, able-bodied or not. The level of ability is not what quantifies the quality of the life.
I hope that the lawsuit gets dismissed.
On the other hand, I have heard of "wrongful life" cases where a person's living will or express wishes to forego "heroic measures" was disregarded in the face of a severe or progressive debilitating condition, and the person was sustained in pain and debility contrary to the expressed desire to be allowed to die.
I think that this is another situation entirely, and DOES haver merit.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
There is another issue here too. What are the religious repercussions of wishing you were never born? I think that God works in ways such as these. The doctor's misdiagnosis allowed this woman to be born. She was created by God for a purpose. It is sad that she hasn't overcome her disabilities enough to find out what that purpose is. I certainly hope that suing the doctor isn't it. I would hate to see her win this case. I do see a malpractice suit here but not "wrongful life."
Sorry if I open a can of worms here. Just stating my own personal beliefs.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The main problem I have is how can the woman be certain that her mother would have aborted her?
She may say that now, but there is no way to be certain what she would have done, because when she was pregnant she may have reacted differently.
If there's malpractice, then I say it's on the part of the mother - she could be able to sue saying that she didn't receive a proper diagnosis. But I don't see how the child herself has grounds to sue.