Jury awards couple $50 million in ‘wrongful birth’ lawsuit

This makes me absolutely sick. I realize that there are two sides to the story, but this just seems so wrong to me.

A jury in Washington has awarded a whopping $50 million settlement to a couple that says, if they had known their five-year-old son would be born with a genetic defect, they would have aborted him.

Brock and Rhea Wuth sued Valley Medical Center and the Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) for the “wrongful birth” of their son, Oliver.

I don't think with an IQ of under 70 the child will ever be able to understand what the parents have done/said but can you imagine learning something like this?

The couple, both of whom are teachers, had their child tested in utero for any genetic abnormalities. Tests conducted by LabCorp said the child would have a 50-50 chance of being born without any issues.

But the Wuths said Valley Medical did not send LabCorp the information about where to look for a genetic defect, causing the company to miss Oliver's condition.

Oliver was born on July 12, 2008, with “unbalanced chromosomal translocation,” a condition in which the child inherits mismatched chromosomes from his parents, resulting in extra or missing genetic material. He cannot walk and has an IQ of less than 70, according to the Seattle Times.

I'm not going to debate the pro-life/pro-choice discussion but I will side with these sentiments:

“What is most troubling to me is not that the test results were inaccurate, but that the purpose of the test itself was so that the parents could decide whether or not to kill their own child,” Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, told LifeSiteNews.com. “This case, and those like it where ‘wrongful birth’ is used as justification for a lawsuit, really exposes the eugenic mindset which has crept into our culture that some lives are not worthy of life.”

This quote sort of hit home for me too:

“This beggars the moral imagination,” Rod Dreher wrote at The American Conservative. “What parent goes to court to contend that justice requires that their baby, however damaged, should be dead?”

Source: www.lifesitenews.com...

I also need to share the top comment from the story, as it sums things up perfectly:

That child should sue his parents for wrongful parenthood, because they are not worthy of taking care of him.

Jury awards $50 million verdict against LabCorp, Wash. hospital

link

A Washington state jury returned a $50 million verdict this week against LabCorp and a hospital after finding both were negligent in testing for a genetic defect in a fetus.

On Tuesday, the jury found that the failure to detect a rare genetic disorder — after the child’s parents specifically requested the test to determine whether to continue the pregnancy — injured the child, Oliver Wuth, and his parents, Brock and Rhea Wuth.

The verdict is to pay for damages and for Oliver’s Wuth’s lifetime care. Both LabCorp and Valley Medical Center, in King County, Wash., must share equally the payment of the $50 million verdict, the jury decided.

This whole event is quite sad but I do think labs and hospitals need to perform their testing correctly and accurately (so the lawsuit seems justified based on my 30 seconds of research).

The lawyer probably used terms that sound barbaric but his job is to win the lawsuit for his clients and not to frame things sensitively.

At least the kid is alive and going to have access to the medical attention his condition may require...

Wow... What cold cold people. I'm not boggled by the fact the tests were inaccurate either, to agree with the latter part of the article. I'm a little stunned by the nerve of these folks.

They pay to see if there are gross defects ...and get told basically, "We dunno.." or ..they can put stack on red or black at the Roulette table. Same odds...like..umm..NATURAL odds by the sound of it. So..they're mad they lost what they got as a coin toss?

I was worried when companies first started this screening, that it might come to that. It makes sense for the gross, and I mean MAJOR defects. There are some you wouldn't want to carry to term with I think...but this is too close to eugenics thinking now, and right down to liability for failure to identify a problem to be "culled".

It's almost evil ...how far this thinking is going.

reply to post by Elton


I completely agree with you regarding the responsibility and the lawyers duty. That being said, I worry more about this child sent to a cheap home for disabled children and the parents never go and see him. I know I might be letting my emotions get the better of me, but I genuinely feel it's a possibility.

I totally feel for the parents. Anyone buying designer babies should get what they pay for. I mean, that's the same as the woman going into Hermes and walking out with a Coach bag. Damn right she should be pissed!

/s

freakjive
reply to post by Elton

 

I completely agree with you regarding the responsibility and the lawyers duty. That being said, I worry more about this child sent to a cheap home for disabled children and the parents never go and see him. I know I might be letting my emotions get the better of me, but I genuinely feel it's a possibility.

I understand completely, my hope is that they provide the best care that money can buy and that they will be loving parents.

Anecdote: I knew a girl in High School who wanted to terminate her pregnancy, she did not and raised a really great kid in a house with much love (this was 22 yrs ago or so, the daughter is now married and works as a teacher in my hometown). I suppose it can go either way...

reply to post by freakjive


unbelievable,thats all you can say about this story.if i had known i wouldn,t have wanted this baby but you know what?$50 million eases the inconvinence. shocking

reply to post by freakjive



They went to court essentially to sue for negligence, which is what it was. I dont see the problem here?
They sought specific genetic testing and it wasn't done right and with catastrophic consequences for the family involved. The company is liable for that, though 50 million is a bit rich even given the exponential cost of caring for a totally disabled child. Overall though I dont see the issue people have with it outside of their assumptions and personal moral relativism. It is not about them being 'cold' people, or mean and horrible unloving parents, it is about holding companies that offer these services accountable for their actions and errors. This payout will enable them to secure this child's future long after they are gone to dust.
These tests are specifically designed and offered to at-risk parents to be, in order to give the option of terminating pregnancies where there is a certain risk to the child and a known inheritable defect in the family. If a company cannot deliver on its word, then it is negligent and deserves to be sued. This issue is about choice and responsibility and health, and I am glad that choice is there. I've seen the end result to a lot of these kids born totally dependent, especially when their birth parents die. In this article I see two people who tried their best to be responsible and accountable before choosing to continue a pregnancy, getting butt surfed by big medical and not taking it lying down. Kudo's to them as they are the ones who are left to live with the reality of the full consequences - a totally disabled child - who will likely out live them and if history is prologue, without such a payout to secure private care for him ongoing, would likely end up in state care being abused by people who dont give a damn about him or his quality of life.

Avoiding arguments about ethics, or abortion, these people paid for a service to ensure a desired result.

If, for instance, you paid a company to locate, test, and ensure the best home purchase for your money, where then the home you wind up purchasing has a bad foundation, leaky roof, contaminated groundwater and soil, and any number of a host of other things such a company would test for, I would think anyone would be upset, especially where they're now stuck.

Ethically, these people are now, indeed stuck, and it's not just some thing like a house, but, a human being.

They desired to avoid the creation of a damaged human being, but, the people they hired to ensure such avoidance failed in their job.

Ethics aside, I can see the point.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


You have a very valid point. I know I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

reply to post by freakjive


Whilst I share the initial revulsion at these headlines having read the story I've got to say there is very much another side to this story.

The parents took reasonable measures to ensure their child was free from any of these sort of abnormalities etc.
Someone screwed up.
And the reality is that looking after a child with such disabilities is an exceptionally draining and taxing responsibility.
That they've sought some sort of 'justice' doesn't necessarily mean that the parents love their child any less.

The financial compensation the couple have received will ensure that the child will be cared and provided for to the best possible standard for the rest of its life.

And the report linked to has a definite pro-life bias to say the least.

For the record, my younger brother is severely physically and mentally handicapped. My parents, who are now both pensioners, are my brothers carers and I have witnessed at first hand the mental and physical toll this has taken on my parents, the financial implications it placed on them, the immeasurable sacrifices they have made.

I assure you, financial compensation of this size would have made an indescribable difference to the quality of life my brother has had and that my parents have had.
All of our family love my brother for what he is - my mother, a Catholic, recently advised someone who had been told there was a chance that her unborn child may be severely handicapped to have an abortion.

I can only summise - and yes I know, I hate summising anything - that those who are expressing moral indignation at this have very little or no first hand experience or knowledge of dealing and coping with handicapped relatives.

No, they're not "cold people." No, they're not "wrong." They KNEW there was a possibility of this major defect. They planned for the possibility and hired the hospital and lab to test SPECIFICALLY for this defect, which is within the expertise of the lab, the hospital, and science to do. That was the contract....

...which the lab entirely blew. The information was there, and they failed to detect it, failed to notify the parents, and failed in their contractual obligation. This wasn't an "accident" at all. It was a failure to follow their own protocols and procedures, a failure to perform the ONE THING they had said they could do, for a substantial fee. They got sued and lost, appropriately.

To care for this person for his entire life will require enormous resources and 24x7 care no normal parents could possibly afford. They're not Bill Gates. This money, after the lawyers take a substantial cut, will be used to care for the child, and the teen, and the adult, for as long as he lives.

You can talk about the evils of abortion all you want. You can also talk about the parents knowing ahead of time that this was a possibility, so they were playing the odds. But the parents did everything reasonable to cover that possibility and had an expectation that the lab could faithfully perform, detect, and report on the results of a fairly simple genetic test. This they failed to do. The jury acted appropriately.

I think there are two ways to read the results they got. They chose to read them how they chose ...and they got what nature delivered.

The couple, both of whom are teachers, had their child tested in utero for any genetic abnormalities. Tests conducted by LabCorp said the child would have a 50-50 chance of being born without any issues.

(Op Link)

Now if I were testing for confidence in the result on something like major Birth Defects? 50/50 is 100% that I'm getting a second opinion.

They chose to read it as 50% chance it would be without defect. It also reads 50% chance there WILL be a defect.

This reads as a sympathy verdict to me. A giant one.

Off topic speaking, this is #1 reason why medical products in the U.S. can cost a person an arm or a leg.

The next time you use a syringe that cost $200.00, an antiseptic wipe that cost $100 a pop, just know that the cost of making those products are not extremely expensive, but rather the cost to insure those said products from mishaps like this... is astronomical.

Anyway... moving on.

freakjive
I also need to share the top comment from the story, as it sums things up perfectly:

That child should sue his parents for wrongful parenthood, because they are not worthy of taking care of him.

24 hours a day for the rest of their lives. I'm sure they would prefer to watch a normal child grow and achieve and live a real life. They had testing performed to be more sure that's what would happen. The testing was botched. I can see their point.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i agree.. they were basically playing dice with the results and realized later on they got the losing roll and decided to sue for it. all things considered, if a baby was not involved, the outcome would probably be different.

what's disturbing to most is maybe how the article stated it. the intent to abort if the results had conclusively shown defects. i'm confused as to how i should react emotionally, the jury behind what their moral stand is, the parents suing, the company providing such services... >.

I'm gonna sue the parents for permanent psychological scarring.

They singlehandedly ruined my faith in humanity.

This makes you wonder at what % of defects their child would have been "acceptable".

If you can't handle the tough moments of being a parent, then you shouldn't even attempt to be a parent.. Granted, I'm not a parent yet, I plan to have children one day, but whatever hand I'm dealt, I will play those cards and I will treat all situations as a blessing and not a curse, like these two dipsh*ts (pardon my french) seem to feel... Profiting off this is just wrong... How about you act like decent human beings and give the $50 million to child hunger or some worthy cause and not your own dirty pockets..

reply to post by freakjive


I wouldn't want these "teachers" teaching my children. Jesus I hope they don't teach special Ed students. SMDH.