French Court Rules Parents Should Be Compensated for Birth of Child with Down Syndrome
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express (http://www.inclusiondaily.com) November 28, 2001
PARIS, FRANCE--The Cour de Cassation, France's high court of appeals, has ruled that the parents of a boy who has Down syndrome should be compensated because he was born.
The boy, identified in media reports only as Lionel, was born in 1995. His parents then sued the mother's gynecologist because the doctor had not detected during the pregnancy that the boy would be born with Down syndrome.
A court agreed with the parents and ordered the doctor to pay around $100,000 for medical negligence.
Now, the country's highest court has decided that the $100,000 is not enough. The court wants the amount increased substantially because the parents claim they would have had an abortion if they known he would be born with a disability.
The decision reinforces another high court ruling made one year ago. The court ruled last November that Nicola Peruche, who was born with several disabilities, could sue his doctors because they had failed to diagnose that his mother had rubella during the pregnancy. His parents also claimed that they would have had him aborted if they had known he might have disabilities.
Disability rights advocates who are trying to fight the Peruche ruling in the courts were further angered by this new ruling.
"Certain judges in the high court of appeal still think it is better to be dead than handicapped," said activist Xavier Mirabel.
For background on the Peruche case and other "wrongful birth" suits, check out this Inclusion Daily Express webpage: http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/advocacy/wrongfulbirths.htm
Disabled Woman Agrees with French High Court Court
I don't necessarily agree that this is a bad approach to children born with disabilities. I felt something similar for the Canadian case. It's essential that doctors are held liable for their mistakes, whether a child ends up with Cerebral Palsy, or Downs, or some other interceptible disorder.
The rationale? The parents are the ones who will have to take care of the child for the rest of his or her life. The child will have to suffer for the doctors' liability or negligence. Someone has to cover the bills for medical treatment and care. The cost to society can be enormous. On top is the stigma to both the child and the parents and families.
Should the doctors get off easy? I don't know. Did Tracy Latimer get off easy, suffering the way she did, because of the original doctors's mistakes at birth? Will the child with Downs or his parents get off easy with $100,000? No, they'll need far more for easy proper care.
I don't interpret this type of decision at all as discriminatory towards people born with disabilities. It's making who should be liable, responsible.
And, with an onus overhead, perhaps, doctors will think twice before making mistakes on pregnant moms and babies..... and, other people whom they so choose to disable.
I have to wonder how many people in the US are disabled today, not because of accidents, but because of negligence and malpractice.
I am one victim of the system, who became disabled at 31 due to gross medical negligence, which has compounded itself over the years. It's not fun, it's not comfortable, my days are filled with pain and obstacles and stigma over being disabled but, because I've been so badly hurt and the way I've been injured, I never had a chance to sue. Who's going to pay my bills?
Lawyers only look for doctors cutting off the wrong leg, or wrong side of the brain, not too many are interested in the greyer areas of malpractice.....This court looks like it's setting an important precedent. Docs better pay attention to you in vitro and tiny patients.....
I know that my comment may inflame everyone, but I ask for people to consider my rationale carefully.
Thanks,
lawgal
Lawgal1035@aol.com
|
