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 genuinely surprised it's not 100% plus criminal responsibility. They literally made the woman gave birth to someone else's child than her husband against her will.
Frankly, that's closer to rape than cuckoldery.
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.
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.
Anybody remember Cecil Jacobson, using his own sperm at the fertility clinic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Are those the only two options? And you accuse others of not thinking things through.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The man and woman in the story might have potential unknown health issues as well. Maybe the kid will now grow up to be healthier than if the man's sperm was used. You don't know 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.
I am not either of the Anonymous Cowards in this thread, but, yeah, I am pretty sure those are the only two options to pay "not a single penny" to raise a child of your wife's.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I did some research and you're right. If you combine the 1st law of thermodynamics, Newton's 2nd law of motion and the unique factorization theorem it works out that it's physically impossible to make either the actual father or the incompetent doctor pay.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, considering that in this case the courts ruled that the medical facility is only liable for 30% of the cost of "upkeep" there is something to that.
However, you are overlooking the context of the original post. The original post clearly implies that the poster would not pay anything even if the courts failed to order the support you are suggesting. In such a case, these two option ARE the only options.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison