and I think that medical malpractice suits are much more rare there, and probably capped very low.
It is interesting that it happened there, since that DS child would be entitled to lifetime care and support. That's supposed to be why medical malpractice is not nearly as frequent nor as generous in nations with universal healthcare. I thought so, anyway. And I don't know the outcome of the lawsuit.
If the American child turns out to be high-functioning and can someday read about her parents' lawsuit, that would be tragic.
And how can a jury or judge be certain that a plaintiff really would have aborted? I think that the only way to be sure is prior abortion or a prior disabled child in the family. Even pro-choice ppl can decide they will raise a disabled child. It's so complicated. My older sister, who was born 17 years before Roe v. Wade, has DS. My dm says she can't imagine her life without dd, but that she can understand why others might choose not to have that life.
This family lives in Oregon. A friend who lived there briefly told me that their social welfare system is very poor, so maybe they really do need the support. And even though my sister is living a fantastic life with more disposable income than I have, that could all go away tomorrow if our legislature and governor decide to yank the rug out. So I guess that I can understand why they feel they need to have resources to care for her. She could live a very long time, after all.
And yes, medical malpractice should not be let go with a slap, esp. when there were so many instances.
To me, this is at least 2 separate issues: negligence and supporting the disabled. I know I might make some ppl angry and I don't want to start a flame war, but I do feel that we need to unconditionally support and educate the disabled so that families don't need to say, "I can't afford to have and raise this disabled child." We need support within schools and society that are so solid that nobody would even think that having a disabled child was a tragedy.
Over a period of years, maybe decades, there were some public debates between Peter Singer, the Australian vegetarian philosopher at Princeton who believes that parents should be allowed to let a disabled baby die, and severely disabled Charleston attorney Harriet McBryde Johnson. Her physical disabilities were so severe that she was exactly the kind of baby that Singer believed should have been allowed to die. She even went to Princeton to debate him. She wrote a wonderful piece in the NYT, if you care to read it. I'll just post the first paragraph here, and a link. Harriet died a few years ago, but she was a terrific advocate for the disabled during her career.
"He insists he doesn't want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened."
Keiki's Makuahine (Keiki's Mom) 51, dh 52
Keiki: b. 2002 after 3 months bedrest
Natural conception following ZIFT/chem. pg
Olivia: b. 1999 d. 1999
28-week preemie, ptl cause unknown
Natural conception after 1 mc
ttc since 1998