Slashdot Mirror
Can Parents Sue If Their Kid Is Born With the 'Wrong' DNA? (gizmodo.com)
Long-time reader randomErr quotes Gizmodo:
It's a nightmare scenario straight out of a primetime drama: a child-seeking couple visits a fertility clinic to try their luck with in-vitro fertilization, only to wind up accidentally impregnated by the wrong sperm. In a fascinating legal case out of Singapore, the country's Supreme Court ruled that this situation doesn't just constitute medical malpractice. The fertility clinic, the court recently ruled, must pay the parents 30% of upkeep costs for the child for a loss of 'genetic affinity.' In other words, the clinic must pay the parents' child support not only because they made a terrible medical mistake, but because the child didn't wind up with the right genes...
"It's suggesting that the child itself has something wrong with it, genetically, and that it has monetary value attached to it," Todd Kuiken, a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo. "They attached damages to the genetic makeup of the child, rather than the mistake. That's the part that makes it uncomfortable. This can take you in all sort of fucked up directions."
"It's suggesting that the child itself has something wrong with it, genetically, and that it has monetary value attached to it," Todd Kuiken, a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo. "They attached damages to the genetic makeup of the child, rather than the mistake. That's the part that makes it uncomfortable. This can take you in all sort of fucked up directions."
Sometimes a woman will trick a man into raising another man's child. It is more common than you think.
"It's suggesting that the child itself has something wrong with it, genetically, and that it has monetary value attached to it," Todd Kuiken, a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo.
That's a lot of shit. It's suggesting that people didn't receive what they paid for, and should receive recompense on that basis. It doesn't mean that the child is bad or wrong. It means the clinic is bad and wrong.
If you think giving a couple the wrong genetic material is OK, then why shouldn't you be responsible for footing the bill if someone else knocks up your wife? This is basically clinical cuckoldry. That's not what they paid for.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If corporations are people, then they can pay child support.
This sets a dangerous precedent. If this keep up, fertility clinics will have to start being careful.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Capitalism is based on the idea that both sides agree to exchange what is promised, not merely something someone else thinks is close enough.
You can't offer to sell "Lamborghini" and deliver a kit car with a Lamborghini shell and a 1985 K car motor under the hood.
If they do not want to be legally held responsible for what the services they do, then the answer is simple - do it for free, with disclaimers about not promissing anything.
Because the second they charge money for their services, they become legally responsible to actually fulfilling what they offer, rather than the mistake. And yes, the penalties correspond to the costs and pain incurred, rather than merely being limited to the amount they charged.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
One of the great mysteries in my family is how I was born (second child) as a ten-pound bowling ball (doctor told my moms she had twins) to two very skinny people. Of course, I had to look like the poster child mongolism and promptly got diagnosed as mentally retarded by the school system. My father stopped drinking, my mother started drinking.
I'm not even sure why this is open for debate. If you pay to have a child that is from $Man and $Woman then you would expect nothing but that. Anything else is deception/fraud. I would also expect there to be criminal charges against the clinic. I agree with the court, though I don't think 30% of upkeep costs is high enough.
Wait, why didn't they do any genetic testing of the zygote *before* implanting? In vitro means the egg was fertilized outside of the womb. They didn't doe the due diligence to check that they'd gotten it right?
This is, of course, a completely different question than the ethics of suing the clinic for the child having the "wrong genes," which sounds like some bullshit.
It suggests that the clinic must act as the "real" father of the child and pay child care because they screwed up so badly, just like if the actual father (you know, the one whose DNA is in the child because of the clinic's mistake) had been legally separated by the mother.
Granted it's not in my nation, but I'm glad they didn't chase down the actual biological father to force him to pay.
this time clinic pays customer ... next time parents with a "better" (replace with desired trait) kid will pay clinic for greater than average genes.
Parasitic women lol
This Todd Kuiken is an idiot. What it implies is that this kid is like any other, the responsibility of his parents. And the unique nature of this screwup meant that he was not strictly the responsibility of the couple, at the same time the original donor should not be held responsible for what was done with his sperm without his consent. So the one responsible was ordered to share part of the responsibility for this child, they are just lucky that the court ordered the responsibility be split three ways, and not half for using the wrong sperm, or if they got really vindictive, it would not have been completely unreasonable to have ordered them to pay all of the expenses for this unwanted child.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Doesn't Dr. Thomas Pabst live in Singapore now, he was German. Hmm....
Seems reasonable to me.
Yes, it has a value, that's why they charge for the service. Otherwise they'd be offering the service for free!
Anybody remember Cecil Jacobson, using his own sperm at the fertility clinic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
There's zero chance I'd pay a single penny to raise a child that is not my genetics.
One of the definitions of "wrong" implies a moral standard is at play, which some comments are keying off of it (including Kuiken in the summary).
The better word in this case is that the incorrect sperm was used.
Didn't RTFA but keep in mind that the parents now have a child with potentially unknown health issues. Parents may be aware of potential health problems due to family medical histories. Worst Case is how about Caucasian parents getting a full negroid child? Who's going to be responsible for that screw up? Keep in mind that the mother has to go through 9 months before they know if the lab got things right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have an in vitro baby and you can bet your ass that I'd sue the living daylights out of the fat cats that ran out fertility center if I ever learned the DNA wasn't mine and my wife's. They charge you just to store the sperm and eggs.
Igor, have a seat. No no, up here.
If it isn't your kid, you shouldn't be forced to be the one paying for it.
LOL I first read it as "Can Parents Sue Their Kid If Born With the 'Wrong' DNA?"
Capitalism is based on the idea that both sides agree to exchange what is promised, not merely something someone else thinks is close enough.
In reality though capitalism is based on the exchange of something which one side can persuade a court is good enough...which is one of the big problems with capitalism because typically one side can afford far more lawyers than the other. In this case what they provided was so far from what they promised that even an army of lawyers could not win the argument that it was good enough but note that they only got 30%, not 50%, of child care and there was zero compensation for the emotional damage to the family.
A contract is a contract. The kid angle is deflection, you can try it but I'm betting you are gonna loose in court.
Life... finds a way.
CLEAN up THE language. WE DON'T need to see THE F WORD on Slashdot.ORG.
I'll QUIT this damned web site if I continue to see the F WORD here.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
WHAT IF I WANT TO YELL, DAMN YOU?
Did I read that right? A geneticist objects to a couple making a big deal about genetics?
Bound to happen someday.
Another interpretation could be: C# devs make more and so don't need to do contract work at night.
I think The ruling is viewing the clinic as one of the "parents" and is making it pay child support, which doesn't imply that there is anything wrong with the child. Possibly a poorly worded reasoning behind it, though,