echidna

Without reading all the links (sorry), I'm unclear why she didn't seek an abortion. I realise it's not an easy decision for women for both medical as well as emotional reasons, however if she sincerely didn't want the baby, then why not terminate the pregnancy ?

Daleth

The articles don't say. Without being specific about this case, there are reasons why a woman in that situation might not have an abortion. Religion or personal moral objections, emotional objections. I am strongly pro-choice, but don't think I could live with myself if I had an abortion (for non-medical reasons) because I have an intense emotional reaction to pregnancy. For some women it's not a hard decision, it's an impossible decision. It's quite possible that the couple chose sterilization because they didn't feel they could afford any more kids, not because they didn't WANT the kids. If they didn't want this kid, I don't suppose they'd be raising him. What they wanted was to prevent conception in the first place, not to get rid of an existing pregnancy.

Vandrare

i heard about this case (the hospital is my local area) when my grandmother come over a few days ago, and she was absolutely disgusted that the mother could do that to the "poor dear of a child". but the fact that they're suing for damages doesn't mean that she doesn't love the boy - unplanned for doesn't mean unloved now he's here!

what i'm unsure about here though, is when they say that the operation was botched does that mean that the doctor actually performed the procedure incorrectly, or that the sterilization just didn't work despite the doctor doing the operation correctly (which is also possible)? if it is in fact the latter of those, as long as the doctor had warned the woman of the possibility it didn't work then he wouldn't be at fault, but if he didn't say that how is she to know and therefore have the choice to take precautions anyway?

having a child is such a huge responsibility, taking a lot of time, money and energy to raise, it has massively changed the possibilities that the woman has for about the next 20 years! therefore, i can see why she should be able to win such a case. as long as she loves the boy and takes care of him well, just not wanting him in the first place would not be any different than for the millions of babies that are unplanned for and unexpected all the time. lots of people must realise they were originally unwanted pregnancies but still cope fine with that, still have a great upbrining, and still know they are completely loved by their parents.

Michaelson

There was a clear element of negligence involved in the operation. That actually wasn't being disputed in the High Court decision.

Having read a bit more about the case I'm a bit clearer now about the precise circumstances than I was when I posted the OP. The High Court awarded Mrs. Melchior $100,000 for the cost of raising Jordan. The other $100,000 for negligence was already settled, and it was in large part the two payments that I found confusing.

The original payment, it seemed to me, was the one that might be considered objectionable. It seemed as though the High Court had made one payment for damages (i.e. the payments for raising Jordan) and another for 'negligence' that I couldn't understand. As I understand it now, the original payment was compensation for loss of earnings and the cost of giving birth. When that is made clear, it seems to me that there is no real distinction to be made between the two payments. In both cases, regardless of whether or not a child was brought into the world, there was a financial burden placed upon the family that needed to be rectified.

I'm not bothered by this case anymore. That is not to say that a lot of people are, though. It seems to be a fairly widely unpopular decision.