Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Do the parents not care that they have the child that they wanted? All they can think about is how tired they are and how much work he is?
| Wanting a child, Mrs. Schirmer became pregnant in 1997. Early in the pregnancy, she underwent genetic testing of the fetus and had an ultrasound at about 20 weeks that, their suit alleges, doctors told her showed the child was female and bearing the same inactive form of the genetic defect Mrs. Schirmer carried. The couple told doctors that if the fetus tested positive for the active form of the disorder, they wanted to legally terminate the pregnancy. In September 1997, Mrs. Schirmer gave birth. Instead of a daughter that the tests had predicted, she bore a son, Matthew. And instead of having the inactive form of the genetic defect, he had severe mental and physical impairments that, even at age six - when the suit was filed in 2003 - made him unable to feed or bathe himself, speak, stand or crawl |
|
Originally Posted by pinkdaisy226
Do the parents not care that they have the child that they wanted? All they can think about is how tired they are and how much work he is?If they knew going into the pregnancy that there was a one in three chance that they'd have this problem, then why would they go ahead with it? Yes, they wanted a child but there are other ways... THEY are responsible for the birth of this child, not the doctors. GRRR... I'm so angry and I have no words to explain how irritated this makes me! |
|
Originally Posted by valanhb
What the article does not specify is how reliable the genetic tests are. Science has come a long way, but that branch of medicine/science is really still in its infancy. I don't think an erroneous result on a test is the same as a lie which is done with forethought and intent. And I know of people who were told the sex of the child only to find that their new son has a very PINK baby room. Ultrasounds are great, but that is also not an exact science.
With the odds being that badly stacked against them, why didn't they adopt a healthy child? Too selfish about passing on the flawed genetics? OK, so she wanted to have her own baby...what about using a donor egg and her husband's sperm (without her flawed genetics that she knew about) in-vitro? There were a lot of options available to them. Playing "I don't want that one" with a planned pregnancy should never have been one of them. |
|
Originally Posted by valanhb
What the article does not specify is how reliable the genetic tests are. Science has come a long way, but that branch of medicine/science is really still in its infancy. I don't think an erroneous result on a test is the same as a lie which is done with forethought and intent. And I know of people who were told the sex of the child only to find that their new son has a very PINK baby room. Ultrasounds are great, but that is also not an exact science.
With the odds being that badly stacked against them, why didn't they adopt a healthy child? Too selfish about passing on the flawed genetics? OK, so she wanted to have her own baby...what about using a donor egg and her husband's sperm (without her flawed genetics that she knew about) in-vitro? There were a lot of options available to them. Playing "I don't want that one" with a planned pregnancy should never have been one of them. |
|
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
Heidi, in the article it stated that the testing was genetic testing AND ultrasound. How the hell did the genetic testing screw up the determination of the child's sex? I mean with the testing of disease I'm sure there are hundreds, maybe thousands of variables, but determing the sex? I mean either it's a boy or a girl If they got that wrong, that's really lame on their (the labs) part. And in this case sex played a major role in determining the severity of the disease. I don't blame the couple for suing. A lot of people chose to abort after the fetus is found to have a severe disease, like spina bifida, severe mental retardation and cystic fribrosis, which if you have it (meaning if cystic fibrosis) your average life expectancy is about 21 years of age. I think in cases like this one has to measure the quality of life for all concerned, the baby and the caregiving parents.
|
|
Originally Posted by millyanddaisy
Raising a severely disabled child is very very hard indeed. It can require a lot of specialist equipment, and the parents often end up doing all the caring - 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, all year round. Now we all can see that raising a regular child is exhausting, but to those of you who have or have had babies, can you remember what it was like when that baby was totally dependent on you for everything? Imagine that going on for twenty/thirty years or whatever? If you were in that situation, wouldn't you be grateful for some help? Even if it were only an hour off each day? In this country, people in that situation often don't get the help they need unless they can pay for it. I read a case just recently where a family had two children who were very disabled, and they had had to re-mortgage their house (they had both had to give up their jobs to care for these children) to get basic equipment that they needed.
I don't blame these parents for suing - they will need every penny they get to raise this child. I think they are also to be applauded for not giving up on this child, sure they could have put him up for adoption, but they obviously wanted to keep him, so they must care about him a lot. I think if I were in their shoes I would do exactly the same thing. Sue |
|
Originally Posted by Obi
I am well aware of the amount of time and energy it takes to raise a disabled child, and have compassion for those who must struggle so. I did respite work for many years. I don't think anyone on the board is disputing that, or that it is emotionally draining. The issue at hand is whether or not the doctors can be blamed for what was essentially the parents' choice. If the doctors failed to tell them that any genetic screening would not be 100% accurate, or if the doctors made an error through negligence rather than because of the inherent uncertainty of the test, then they have a case. If not, while raising this child will be a constant struggle, it was their decision to make and the doctors cannot be blamed for it.
|
|
Originally Posted by pinkdaisy226
If they knew going into the pregnancy that there was a one in three chance that they'd have this problem, then why would they go ahead with it? Yes, they wanted a child but there are other ways... THEY are responsible for the birth of this child, not the doctors.
|
| The Schirmers knew that she carried a genetic disorder that gave her a one-in-three chance - higher if the child was male - of having a child who could be mentally retarded and with severe, multiple physical disabilities. Wanting a child, Mrs. Schirmer became pregnant in 1997. Early in the pregnancy, she underwent genetic testing of the fetus and had an ultrasound at about 20 weeks that, their suit alleges, doctors told her showed the child was female and bearing the same inactive form of the genetic defect Mrs. Schirmer carried.The couple told doctors that if the fetus tested positive for the active form of the disorder, they wanted to legally terminate the pregnancy. The couple sued, claiming that the around-the-clock care their son requires had drained them financially and traumatized them emotionally, and that had they known he carried the active form of the disorder, they would have ended the pregnancy. |
|
Originally Posted by valanhb
No, according to the article, they determined more than the child's sex. And the sex only increased the chance of disability in the child, it didn't determine it.
They don't say that if they had known the child was simply *male* that they would have terminated the pregnancy. If that were the case, if being a male made it 100% that he would have the disorder, than the case would be cut and dried. |
| Early in the pregnancy, she underwent genetic testing of the fetus and had an ultrasound at about 20 weeks that, their suit alleges, doctors told her showed the child was female and bearing the same inactive form of the genetic defect Mrs. Schirmer carried. |
|
Originally Posted by GrayKittenLove
The issue is that they were LIED to by the medical professionals. It was not the doctors place to make that decision for the parents. It was the parent's decision, and anything beyond that is betweent he parents and God.
|
|
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
"Wrongful Birth" is a legal term, not something tagged on the child by the parents. It is not the first time this term has been used. I googled it and got a wealth of info, that did not pertain to this case. They need money now to raise their child properly, the cost of which (in the childs-->adult) lifetime will be a fortune, and NOT a small one at that. They are suing to get the money they need. If the genetic tests were not botched in the first place, this would be a non issue. Who do you think should pay the bills...would YOU have the money if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm sure they are also suing for pain and suffering, and I certainly understand that as well.
|
