Now I've seen everything. Alexia Harriton, an Australian woman who is deaf, blind, physically and mentally disabled and requires round-the-clock care, is suing a doctor for allowing her to be born, with the full support by her mother.
http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/11/wborn11.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/11/ixportal.html
Now I realise the doctor wasn't entirely clear about the dangers, but can you seriously sue for an act of God? This really seems to be a case of bad luck more thn negligence to me. I thought it was pretty clear that Rubella doesn't dish out the horrible conditions here either. And surely Alexia should be seeking charges against the mother too? The very fact that she isn't makes me skeptical.
I'd have loved to see what the reaction here would have been to this case.
Happens in the US a lot, deep pocket syndrome , try and get money from insurance companies to pay for medical care ..on the one hand a disabled child on the other an insurance company lawyer get them in front of a jury and the odds are stacked against the insurance company
Now I realise the doctor wasn't entirely clear about the dangers, but can you seriously sue for an act of God?
I really doubt that - my aunt's mum would have sued the UK doctors years ago if that was possible.
/her brother was born deaf from rubella and has Down's Syndrome as well
//nice guy though
ummm so that where I am going wrong, SH*t gonna sue the world for be so bloody stupied then lol
"Act of God?" :???:
What loving mother would ever tell her child she would have aborted them -especially one who already has so much to contend with. The mother is behind it and after money for the easy life, imo.
Would she really have aborted the baby because she had rubella? I doubt it. Maybe later if she had the tests for DS and they came back positive? Abortions for those reasons were at least as socially unacceptable then that they are now, so there's a good chance she still wouldn't have aborted the child.
How can you sue based on what you might have done of someone might have done to you?
Let's see, I went to a concert and I might have been noticed by and married the lead singer if he hadn't been so pissed he couldn't see straight. Now who can I sue? The lead singer? His Mum? The vodka manufacturer? The bodyguard for letting him get so drunk? :roll:
I say you sue all of them, more chances to get some money that way. -)
I agree with monster.
My friend had toxemia in her first pregnancy; she continued to work full time and then travel for about three hours by train in the evenings to visit her sick husband in a London hospital. She was advised to rest but she didn't see how she could and didn't really think it was a big deal since her mother had had toxemia with all four pregnancies.
The baby was stillborn right on her due date and my friend almost died during the birth. She said if she had been told there was a serious threat to her baby's life she would have heeded the advice. Did she sue? Of course not. It was no-one's fault and no-one was blamed.