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."

7 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit, Todd. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.'"
    1. Re:Bullshit, Todd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The kid does have the wrong genes. They wanted their kid, they got somebody else's kid. It fucking matters!

      The clinic is responsible for child support, in the same way a guy would be responsible for child support if he impregnated a woman by accident (protection failed or whatever).

      Such a punishment is necessary to prevent this sort of thing. No punishment = widespread malpractice. That's reality.

    2. Re:Bullshit, Todd. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.

      The kid having the wrong genes is the direct fruit of the clinic's malpractice. It's no different than a baby being dropped on its head by the doctor. You don't sue ONLY for the mistake, you sue for the consequences of the mistake. Two parents decide to merge their DNA and make a baby. They do so knowing their, and their families' histories. The clinic chooses to negligently upend that planning with an unknown set of consequences - and robbing the parents of having allowed the father to contribute his traits to the child they've chosen to make. The ramifications are numerous, both emotionally and quite possibly medically, intellectually, etc., for the child. You can't separate the negligence from the life-long consequences.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Bullshit, Todd. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes. Suing the clinic over medical malpractice is fine, but the couple has sued for a completely different formulation of the problem.

      You keep talking about "right" and "wrong" genes as if it was a flawed designer baby that didn't match the contract specifications. If you make a child, you pay child support. If it's not your child, you don't pay child support. If it doesn't have dad's genes, biologically it isn't his which leaves half of the child's expenses unpaid. If the accidental donor can't be held economically responsible, the clinic should. If a man can have a one night stand and pay for it the next 18 years, I don't see why they can't have one lab accident and pay for it the next 18 years.

      I think the clinic is lucky to only pay 30%, I'd say the cuckolded father has every right to disavow this child and for the mother to demand the clinic pays half in the absentee father's place. The man in this couple has essentially agreed to become the adoptive dad of someone else's child and pay 20% of the expenses himself, I think that's overly generous. In fact I bet in the US they'd both sue the hospital for many millions of dollars over the emotional trauma of discovering "their" child isn't their child.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Bullshit, Todd. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The father "propagating his like" and all that does matter in some cultures though. And it's not just a matter of shame, which can be considerable, for the parents. Bastardy can carry a stigma for the child as well that may even persist into adulthood.

      I'm not endorsing such beliefs, mind you. Nor am I accusing these parents of holding them. Hell, I neither have nor want kids, for that matter. But the cultural attitudes I described do exist in the world. And they can cause significant problems for the child beyond the, not at all insignificant, medical questions that may arise from unknown parentage.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  2. The only Reasonable Solution. by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The legal system for child support came about because plenty of "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families when the going got rough or a more winsome piece of ass drifted on by.
    There aren't many mothers who haven't feared being own their own raising the kids, regardless of who the father was.
    Yup, there are plenty of sluts out there with low morals but they're outnumbered by the dicks, not the cucks.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body