parents awarded $50 mil in "wrongful birth" suit

jayja2007 · December 2013

I can't remember who brought this up the other day, but I have no words.

A couple sued a lab company for wrongful birth when they didn't receive knowledge that their son had a 50/50 chance of being born with a genetic defect.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jury-awards-couple-50-million-in-wrongful-birth-lawsuit

(Sorry, can't make clicky on mobile)

misspunky · December 2013

This just makes me sad. I honestly can't say what I would've done in the situation if I was told my baby would have a major birth defect, but the fact that this couple's baby is here and alive and they can still say they would've aborted the baby makes me sick.

tinyhumantoe · December 2013

I dunno....... You pay to have the testing done because you are high risk for genetic abnormalities.... And they didn't catch one of the most obvious, in-your-face defects?

I don't think it implies that they don't love their child, or that they aren't grateful to have him.

LyndseylovesHugh · December 2013

tinyhumantoe said:
I dunno....... You pay to have the testing done because you are high risk for genetic abnormalities.... And they didn't catch one of the most obvious, in-your-face defects?

I don't think it implies that they don't love their child, or that they aren't grateful to have him.

I agree. Just because they say they would have aborted him does not mean that they do not love him and are happy he is there. They are being honest, they would have done it, they are not saying they want him to stop living now. The lab was negligent, they did not do their job and because of that their choice was taken away from them. It's a very sad story but I think the parents are being shown in an unfair light.

Eta: I think for the purpose of the suit they needed to say they would have aborted him. If they didn't say they planned on it there would be nothing to sue over.

misspunky · December 2013

JohnJacobJingleHeimer said:

I will just state that until you are in a position to TFMR you shouldn't judge... Not sure if that even really applies but I've had some drinks and feeling emotional.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I really don't know what I'd do if I had been in their position. But, now that the baby is here and alive, it makes me sad for the baby.

jayja2007 · December 2013

Sahara78 said:
Both the lab and the hospital's genetic counseling dept screwed up. I believe the couple deserves the money to help pay for the 24/7 care their son needs.

I found more details on the case here:
https://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022438460_geneticverdictxml.html

I'm not judging them. Its just sad like @misspunky said, their son is here and they' still are/were thinking they should have aborted him (if that makes sense).

Thanks for the added info. At first the amount they were awarded seemed high. But from this article they are using it to pay medical bills/education/etc. for the rest of his life so it makes since.

mamaHippo23 · December 2013

“What is most troubling to me is not that the test results were inaccurate, but that the purpose of the test itself was so that the parents could decide whether or not to kill their own child”

I think this statement proves this article is meant to dramatize the situation and make these parents look like horrible, selfish people. There is a very obvious pro-life stance in the writing which makes me think they're only reporting what they want people to see, not what actually happened. When they use the word "kill" instead of "terminate", you know they're more interested in pushing their own agenda then reporting the story.

tinyhumantoe · December 2013

Technically they are fighting for his best interest. With the judgement, they can provide better care for him.

Idk what TMFR is though.

KellersPrag · December 2013

@tinyhumantoe termination for medical reasons.

Nita2603 · December 2013

Honestly, 'wrongful birth' is a term coined by media. Those people are receiving money because their child will need money and help for the rest of his / their life.
I am not sure I could raise a child that will never be well. I have not been in their shoes. I cannot judge.

Holly_1007 · December 2013

I don't judge. I could never afford to care for a baby that needs that much assistance, Im glad they are getting some money to help with his expenses.

AKB090609 · December 2013

jonesaj said:

Jodi Picoult wrote a novel about this type of situation. I can't imagine having the choice taken from me, but we declined the genetic testing with Dd so I just don't know how I would have handled it in her situation.

Right, but you made the choice not to know until birth, which likely means that you felt there was little risk, or that the presents of a genetic anomaly would not change your choice to parent. I chose to skip the testing for those reasons.

This couple wanted to know and they had the testing, it's unfortunate that the choice was taken away from them when it was one they clearly wanted.

It is all extremely difficult for me to read and I hope that the family is able to use the money to provide the best possible situation for the child.

Hyaline · December 2013

I feel that when you have a baby, you've paid your money and you takes your chance, you know? I do feel that the lab needs to be held accountable for making a major error, but even in this case--the parents were told the kid had a 50/50 shot of being born "normal" so they knew they didn't have a clear shot. If they were determined to only have a "normal" child, why didn't they abort with only a 50% shot at normal? They're teachers--50% is a failing grade, right? These tests are not 100% accurate in the best cases. What if the test had not had any errors but the child was still born with a genetic defect--would we still say they have a right to sue because they would have aborted a child with a defect? The entire idea of genetic testing is squicky to me for these (and other) reasons. It's not 100% accurate, but people are making a choice that demands 100% accuracy.

The entire issue of lifelong care for people with disabilities is a lot bigger than "which corporation do we sue to get the cash" in my opinion. As a society, we need to decide how to handle this--is it the parents' responsibility, or should we as taxpayers be picking up more of the burden?

Hyaline · December 2013

JohnJacobJingleHeimer said:

I will just state that until you are in a position to TFMR you shouldn't judge... Not sure if that even really applies but I've had some drinks and feeling emotional.

I'm not so sure. I find that determining my ethical lines and my moral beliefs before I'm in a situation actually helps me to make a decision I don't regret when I am faced with a challenging call. I'm not saying TFMR is right or wrong, just that I think it's ok to hold as-yet-untested beliefs. It's not judging them to say "I, me, myself would never TFMR."

LyndseylovesHugh · December 2013

Hyaline said:
I feel that when you have a baby, you've paid your money and you takes your chance, you know? I do feel that the lab needs to be held accountable for making a major error, but even in this case--the parents were told the kid had a 50/50 shot of being born "normal" so they knew they didn't have a clear shot. If they were determined to only have a "normal" child, why didn't they abort with only a 50% shot at normal? They're teachers--50% is a failing grade, right? These tests are not 100% accurate in the best cases. What if the test had not had any errors but the child was still born with a genetic defect--would we still say they have a right to sue because they would have aborted a child with a defect? The entire idea of genetic testing is squicky to me for these (and other) reasons. It's not 100% accurate, but people are making a choice that demands 100% accuracy.

The entire issue of lifelong care for people with disabilities is a lot bigger than "which corporation do we sue to get the cash" in my opinion. As a society, we need to decide how to handle this--is it the parents' responsibility, or should we as taxpayers be picking up more of the burden?

This is ridiculous. I don't know a lot about these tests but I know that they have some tests that give you a very high percentage of accuracy. Saying a 50% is a failing grade is a horrible comparison to "i'm going to not bother doing further tests because, hey, there's a 50% chance so let's just go ahead and terminate now without any further information." They knew there was a 50% chance so they chose to have further tests done so they could make the right choice for THEIR family, and that choice was taken away from them plain and simple. You may not have made the same decision and that is fine for you, but that doesn't mean that this family needed to have sucked it up and terminated on a 50/50 chance just because you feel they knew there was a chance.

BillyMollyEmmy · December 2013

The link that's posted here is so erroneous and agenda-pushing it's ridiculous.

THIS is the actual news story, not some article posted by a no-name on an anti-abortion website.

I do have my own thoughts on this, but first and foremost the facts of the matter are much different than that website would have you believe.

Hyaline · December 2013

LyndseylovesHugh said:

I feel that when you have a baby, you've paid your money and you takes your chance, you know? I do feel that the lab needs to be held accountable for making a major error, but even in this case--the parents were told the kid had a 50/50 shot of being born "normal" so they knew they didn't have a clear shot. If they were determined to only have a "normal" child, why didn't they abort with only a 50% shot at normal? They're teachers--50% is a failing grade, right? These tests are not 100% accurate in the best cases. What if the test had not had any errors but the child was still born with a genetic defect--would we still say they have a right to sue because they would have aborted a child with a defect? The entire idea of genetic testing is squicky to me for these (and other) reasons. It's not 100% accurate, but people are making a choice that demands 100% accuracy.

The entire issue of lifelong care for people with disabilities is a lot bigger than "which corporation do we sue to get the cash" in my opinion. As a society, we need to decide how to handle this--is it the parents' responsibility, or should we as taxpayers be picking up more of the burden?
This is ridiculous. I don't know a lot about these tests but I know that they have some tests that give you a very high percentage of accuracy. Saying a 50% is a failing grade is a horrible comparison to "i'm going to not bother doing further tests because, hey, there's a 50% chance so let's just go ahead and terminate now without any further information." They knew there was a 50% chance so they chose to have further tests done so they could make the right choice for THEIR family, and that choice was taken away from them plain and simple. You may not have made the same decision and that is fine for you, but that doesn't mean that this family needed to have sucked it up and terminated on a 50/50 chance just because you feel they knew there was a chance.

Sorry, but I think we're speaking different languages. If they feel that having a child born with a disability is such a liability that they must sue, 50% should not have been sufficient to continue the pregnancy without further testing (which is the decision I'm seeing that they made from this article--perhaps I am incorrect?). I'm not saying this from a "right for their family" standpoint but from a "I never would have awarded them money on those grounds" standpoint.

BillyMollyEmmy · December 2013

Hyaline said:

LyndseylovesHugh said:

I feel that when you have a baby, you've paid your money and you takes your chance, you know? I do feel that the lab needs to be held accountable for making a major error, but even in this case--the parents were told the kid had a 50/50 shot of being born "normal" so they knew they didn't have a clear shot. If they were determined to only have a "normal" child, why didn't they abort with only a 50% shot at normal? They're teachers--50% is a failing grade, right? These tests are not 100% accurate in the best cases. What if the test had not had any errors but the child was still born with a genetic defect--would we still say they have a right to sue because they would have aborted a child with a defect? The entire idea of genetic testing is squicky to me for these (and other) reasons. It's not 100% accurate, but people are making a choice that demands 100% accuracy.

The entire issue of lifelong care for people with disabilities is a lot bigger than "which corporation do we sue to get the cash" in my opinion. As a society, we need to decide how to handle this--is it the parents' responsibility, or should we as taxpayers be picking up more of the burden?
This is ridiculous. I don't know a lot about these tests but I know that they have some tests that give you a very high percentage of accuracy. Saying a 50% is a failing grade is a horrible comparison to "i'm going to not bother doing further tests because, hey, there's a 50% chance so let's just go ahead and terminate now without any further information." They knew there was a 50% chance so they chose to have further tests done so they could make the right choice for THEIR family, and that choice was taken away from them plain and simple. You may not have made the same decision and that is fine for you, but that doesn't mean that this family needed to have sucked it up and terminated on a 50/50 chance just because you feel they knew there was a chance.

Sorry, but I think we're speaking different languages. If they feel that having a child born with a disability is such a liability that they must sue, 50% should not have been sufficient to continue the pregnancy without further testing (which is the decision I'm seeing that they made from this article--perhaps I am incorrect?). I'm not saying this from a "right for their family" standpoint but from a "I never would have awarded them money on those grounds" standpoint.

This is from the news article - I think it was made to sound different in the article provided.

"In fact, Brock and Rhea Wuth were told they had a 50-50 chance of having a child with that defect or a related translocation. So they sought genetic counseling and testing and carefully followed all the recommendations.

When Rhea Wuth became pregnant, genetic tests pronounced their unborn child normal.

But as soon as their son was born on July 12, 2008, the Burien couple knew something was very wrong. Oliver, who has the genetic defect, was born with profound mental and physical disabilities."

tinyhumantoe · December 2013

The "50-50" I believe was based on the genetic counseling - so based on the combination of family history, genetic conditions, age, and other factors.

Based on that information, they chose to have the further testing. My understanding is that the chromosomal defect was fully detectable had the company done their job.... It's not something the LAB looks at and assigns a "percentage chance".... It is a "known" and the only variability would have been the degree of expression, which I don't know much about that with their specific issue. Sometimes there are varying degrees, and sometimes there are not. For example, trisomy 13 has some severe 'guaranteed' outcomes. Some disorders have a wider continuum. Anyway, that would have been the discussion AFTER the lab identified the chromosomal disorder.

I have a feeling there were some paperwork or protocol issues, perhaps some gross negligence, and when your line of business is doing this test and providing results.....there are potentially ramifications when you don't. I mean, if you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing, then what? This is why companies pay out the ass for proper insurance policies.

LyndseylovesHugh · December 2013

tinyhumantoe said:
The "50-50" I believe was based on the genetic counseling - so based on the combination of family history, genetic conditions, age, and other factors.

Based on that information, they chose to have the further testing. My understanding is that the chromosomal defect was fully detectable had the company done their job.... It's not something the LAB looks at and assigns a "percentage chance".... It is a "known" and the only variability would have been the degree of expression, which I don't know much about that with their specific issue. Sometimes there are varying degrees, and sometimes there are not. For example, trisomy 13 has some severe 'guaranteed' outcomes. Some disorders have a wider continuum. Anyway, that would have been the discussion AFTER the lab identified the chromosomal disorder.

I have a feeling there were some paperwork or protocol issues, perhaps some gross negligence, and when your line of business is doing this test and providing results.....there are potentially ramifications when you don't. I mean, if you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing, then what? This is why companies pay out the ass for proper insurance policies.

Perfectly stated.

Hyaline · December 2013

BillyMollyEmmy said:

Hyaline said:

LyndseylovesHugh said:

I feel that when you have a baby, you've paid your money and you takes your chance, you know? I do feel that the lab needs to be held accountable for making a major error, but even in this case--the parents were told the kid had a 50/50 shot of being born "normal" so they knew they didn't have a clear shot. If they were determined to only have a "normal" child, why didn't they abort with only a 50% shot at normal? They're teachers--50% is a failing grade, right? These tests are not 100% accurate in the best cases. What if the test had not had any errors but the child was still born with a genetic defect--would we still say they have a right to sue because they would have aborted a child with a defect? The entire idea of genetic testing is squicky to me for these (and other) reasons. It's not 100% accurate, but people are making a choice that demands 100% accuracy.

The entire issue of lifelong care for people with disabilities is a lot bigger than "which corporation do we sue to get the cash" in my opinion. As a society, we need to decide how to handle this--is it the parents' responsibility, or should we as taxpayers be picking up more of the burden?
This is ridiculous. I don't know a lot about these tests but I know that they have some tests that give you a very high percentage of accuracy. Saying a 50% is a failing grade is a horrible comparison to "i'm going to not bother doing further tests because, hey, there's a 50% chance so let's just go ahead and terminate now without any further information." They knew there was a 50% chance so they chose to have further tests done so they could make the right choice for THEIR family, and that choice was taken away from them plain and simple. You may not have made the same decision and that is fine for you, but that doesn't mean that this family needed to have sucked it up and terminated on a 50/50 chance just because you feel they knew there was a chance.

Sorry, but I think we're speaking different languages. If they feel that having a child born with a disability is such a liability that they must sue, 50% should not have been sufficient to continue the pregnancy without further testing (which is the decision I'm seeing that they made from this article--perhaps I am incorrect?). I'm not saying this from a "right for their family" standpoint but from a "I never would have awarded them money on those grounds" standpoint.

This is from the news article - I think it was made to sound different in the article provided.

"In fact, Brock and Rhea Wuth were told they had a 50-50 chance of having a child with that defect or a related translocation. So they sought genetic counseling and testing and carefully followed all the recommendations.
When Rhea Wuth became pregnant, genetic tests pronounced their unborn child normal.
But as soon as their son was born on July 12, 2008, the Burien couple knew something was very wrong. Oliver, who has the genetic defect, was born with profound mental and physical disabilities."

Thanks for this--this clarifies a lot and definitely changes how I look at the case and their choices.

jayja2007 · December 2013

BillyMollyEmmy said:
The link that's posted here is so erroneous and agenda-pushing it's ridiculous.

THIS is the actual news story, not some article posted by a no-name on an anti-abortion website.

I do have my own thoughts on this, but first and foremost the facts of the matter are much different than that website would have you believe.

To be fair, this was posted by my pro-life, anti-circumcision, anti-vaccs sil (who posts nonstop about this stuff) on fb. I didn't even pay attention to the website.

BillyMollyEmmy · December 2013

jayja2007 said:

The link that's posted here is so erroneous and agenda-pushing it's ridiculous.

THIS is the actual news story, not some article posted by a no-name on an anti-abortion website.

I do have my own thoughts on this, but first and foremost the facts of the matter are much different than that website would have you believe.

To be fair, this was posted by my pro-life, anti-circumcision, anti-vaccs sil (who posts nonstop about this stuff) on fb. I didn't even pay attention to the website.

Sorry - that wasn't meant to be directed at you personally as the OP. I tend to get really frustrated when articles like that are published as though the website is a news agency and it leaves the public guessing about its validity. That was where my comment stemmed from.

melody921 · December 2013

tinyhumantoe said:

I dunno....... You pay to have the testing done because you are high risk for genetic abnormalities.... And they didn't catch one of the most obvious, in-your-face defects? I don't think it implies that they don't love their child, or that they aren't grateful to have him.

Agree. And the money will help care for him, which may be more what the basis of this lawsuit was about anyway.

melody921 · December 2013

jonesaj said:

Jodi Picoult wrote a novel about this type of situation. I can't imagine having the choice taken from me, but we declined the genetic testing with Dd so I just don't know how I would have handled it in her situation.

I read that book! It is a heartbreaking decision for any parent.

Want a personalized experience?

parents awarded $50 mil in "wrongful birth" suit

Re: parents awarded $50 mil in "wrongful birth" suit

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

Want a personalized experience?

parents awarded $50 mil in "wrongful birth" suit

Re: parents awarded $50 mil in &quot;wrongful birth&quot; suit

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

Re: parents awarded $50 mil in "wrongful birth" suit