There is something profoundly wrong with this!
And begs the question how a 4 year old can sue a doctor....?
Disabled seek damages for 'wrongful life': "Disabled seek damages for 'wrongful life'
By Fergus Shiel
Two young disabled Australians will today make a final attempt in the High Court to be the first to prove 'wrongful life' in Australian law.
Lawyers for Alexia Harriton, 24, who is deaf, blind and physically and mentally disabled, allege her family doctor negligently failed to diagnose rubella infection early in her mother's pregnancy.
They claim Dr Paul Stephens also wrongly reassured Ms Harriton's mother, Olga, that her unborn child would not be affected.
The case will try to prove the concept of 'wrongful life' — that given correct medical advice, their parents would have opted to terminate. Lawyer Kathryn Booth, of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, said: 'It involves complex legal and ethical issues about the right of a disabled child to claim following negligent advice by a doctor.'
Wrongful life cases have succeeded in the United States, France and Holland, but in Britain legislation has been introduced to prevent them.
The full bench of the High Court will simultaneously hear the case of Keeden Waller, a four-year-old from Nowra in NSW, who was born profoundly disabled.
If successful, the cases would set a precedent for children with severe disabilities wanting to sue doctors for failing to provide information that would"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So - her mother was unfortunately infected with a disease that caused the defendant's disability.
The doctor's alleged failure to diagnose this didn't cause the disease or its results.
It would have only meant that the parents weren't given information that might have resulted in termination.
So the doctor's alleged negligence resulted in the defendant being born, not in her disability itself.
You can't say you're complaining about being born disabled, but not about being born.
That leaves you with complaining about being disabled, and the success or failure of a doctor to diagnose this after the fact cannot change that disability.
This is indeed a 'wrongful life' claim that she is making. And its a devastating indictment on our society that that is a category of litigation.
I don't think it is a 4 year old, I read it as a 24 year old.
But it is still very sad. It is also quite illogical: If she wasn't born then she couldn't sue the doctor.
There are two cases being heard - one of a 24 year old woman and one of a 4 year old...
Yeah, sorry about that - obviously there were two girls. Still though, the claim is illogical regardless of age.
Also its not the girl I would assume but the parents bringing the case? Her age isn't really relevant to the debate I would have thought.
I think age is a significant factor. If a 24 year old decides they should not have been born, I would consider they are a suicide risk. That in itself is tragic.
However, if one of the cases is on behalf of a 4 year old, we assume that this child's parents have brought the case. This is another element all together where a parent decides this child should never have been born. Is the child in question in danger of harm from parents who feel this? Should community services step in? Would you consider this person at risk, not from suicide, but from murder?
Furthermore, this sounds like parents who are struggling and perhaps overwhelmed and I think they need help and support - not a court case where they need to argue and prove a case that their child's life is wrong.
Probably that's what their (the parrents) court case is all about - financial support - because I don't know that they could have any other realistic legal aims.
Post a Comment