Last month, an Australian couple was granted an extension by the Supreme Court in Brisbane to sue the medical staff of a Gold Coast ultrasound clinic. The pending lawsuit is expected to be an enormous one, with extensive damages being sought as well as a personal injury suit on behalf of the mother. An initial reading of the preliminary details makes the case appear to be extremely serious, causing one to wonder what the doctor and the ultrasound technicians might have done wrong.
That question has a stomach-turning answer. As it turns out, the couple’s daughter – now a little girl of four years old – has Down syndrome. The couple had not been expecting this, as both a doctor and a sonographer had told them during an appointment in August of 2014 that the risk of a chromosomal abnormality was in the “low range” and that further testing was unnecessary. They turned out to have been mistaken, and the child had to spend several weeks in intensive care with a feeding tube following her birth.
3 thoughts on “Parents sue clinic because their daughter was born with Down syndrome–and they’d rather she be dead”
Sam says:
hmm … almost like treatment/care is expensive and a professional error was made. Maybe the parents can’t afford proper care for their daughter and this is the only way to get the funds?
Obviously the parents have no respect for “life”, and it sounds like “it’s all about me Syndrome” and no regard for a beautiful little person. No moral compass, and lacking in compassion.
I’m not sure that is obvious without talking to the parents about their motivation behind the lawsuit. It certainly wouldn’t be selfish if they were bringing the claim to fund their daughter’s care and give her the best life possible.
I followed the link and read Jonathan’s whole article. Here is the bit that hints as to motivations:
“They are also suing for “maintenance costs” and the loss of future earnings that they anticipate as a result of being the parents of a child with a disability. In short: Their daughter is an inconvenience, and they would like the medical professionals who failed to let them know she had Down syndrome so that they could have her killed to pay for their daughter’s upbringing. After all, if they’d had their way, she would be dead, and they would be free. But because she ended up in their arms rather than in a dumpster, they are suing a clinic.”
Contrary to Jonathan’s interpretation, what the parents are doing is getting their daughter’s expensive care paid for and ensuring they can take time off work to help in her care without compromising their ability to raise their daughter. Those are the “damages” (court order) being sought.
While the phrasing of the claim may seem callous, there is no other way in law to access funds (and social assistance is often inadequate).
Do you have a better idea to fund their daughter’s care?
hmm … almost like treatment/care is expensive and a professional error was made. Maybe the parents can’t afford proper care for their daughter and this is the only way to get the funds?
Obviously the parents have no respect for “life”, and it sounds like “it’s all about me Syndrome” and no regard for a beautiful little person. No moral compass, and lacking in compassion.
I’m not sure that is obvious without talking to the parents about their motivation behind the lawsuit. It certainly wouldn’t be selfish if they were bringing the claim to fund their daughter’s care and give her the best life possible.
I followed the link and read Jonathan’s whole article. Here is the bit that hints as to motivations:
“They are also suing for “maintenance costs” and the loss of future earnings that they anticipate as a result of being the parents of a child with a disability. In short: Their daughter is an inconvenience, and they would like the medical professionals who failed to let them know she had Down syndrome so that they could have her killed to pay for their daughter’s upbringing. After all, if they’d had their way, she would be dead, and they would be free. But because she ended up in their arms rather than in a dumpster, they are suing a clinic.”
Contrary to Jonathan’s interpretation, what the parents are doing is getting their daughter’s expensive care paid for and ensuring they can take time off work to help in her care without compromising their ability to raise their daughter. Those are the “damages” (court order) being sought.
While the phrasing of the claim may seem callous, there is no other way in law to access funds (and social assistance is often inadequate).
Do you have a better idea to fund their daughter’s care?