Michaelson

The Australian High Court has ordered a doctor to pay for the up bringing of a healthy child born after a botched sterilisation operation on the mother. The mother, Mrs Melchior, was 40 when she underwent the procedure, and had her child, Jordan, 5 years later. Mr and Mrs Melchior were awarded $100,000 for negligence, and another $100,000 for the cost of raising the child. Read a full transcript from the Australian current affairs program Lateline, here.

From the Lateline transcript: More info can be found here, at the Sydney Morning Herald, where John Anderson warns against a trend "towards regarding our children as a consumer durable there for our pleasure, rather like an expensive fridge or a new DVD player"

Very difficult issue, I think. At one time, I sympathise with the 50 year old parents with a 5 year old son, but it is hard to look past John Anderson's comments regarding the impact on Jordan this case might have in the future. I wouldn't know where to begin when wheighing up those two considerations, but even tougher I think is forming an opinion regarding the life as a comodity question. My gut tells me that it stems from deep seated religious beliefs, but I remain quite sympathetic to the view that a child's life has value of its own that the parents should be compelled to foster.

Any views?

Adrammalech

Well the doc did screw up, and it is a botched medical procedure so the negligence stands. As for the 100,000 in child rearing costs is also a fair award in my mind, because it is a direct cost as a result of the negligence, and I don't see it as placing a value on a human life, it is a reasonable cost of raising the child to adulthood. I don't view humans as a commodity and even in this case the child is not really a commodity, at least in the way that I interpret the definition.

Definitions of commodity from dictionary.com:

1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage: “Left-handed, power-hitting third basemen are a rare commodity in the big leagues” (Steve Guiremand).
2. An article of trade or commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold.
Advantage; benefit.
3. A quantity of goods.
1. Convenience; accommodation; profit; benefit; advantage; interest; commodiousness.
2. That which affords convenience, advantage, or profit, especially in commerce, including everything movable that is bought and sold (except animals), -- goods, wares, merchandise, produce of land and manufactures, etc.

articles of commerce

I don't see them trading this kid on the market, and unless they don't send the kid to college or buy him anything at all I don't see them making a profit either.

The unfortunate thing is that in this particular instance, the child is going to be screwed up in his relationship with his parents.

Proctors_Gambit

Can you imagine that poor kid?

Kid: Mommy... where did all that money come from.
Mother: A doctor gave it too us to apologise for letting you be born.
Kid: Why did he have to apologise?
Mother: Because we really didn't want you honey.
Kid: How much didn't you want me?
Mother *waggling an armfull of hundred dollar bills*: I'd guess about this much.


I'd suggest a good course of action is rectify the situation. Give the parents the money they've spent thus far, then take the kid away. They no longer have the unwanted child so they're back to square one.
If they wish to keep him they should forfeit the right to further money for his upbringing and accept him as a choice.

My thoughts anyway.

-Gambit

trunks2k

I think that's a bit unfair. Just because the child was unplanned for does not mean that the parents don't love it. The parentsshould be rewared at least some money, because not planning for the child (thinking that because of the procedure they have no reason to worry about having one) could mean they just don't have the money to take care of the child.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

For those who are interested, the full text of the High Court decision can be found here .

contracycle

Now THAT, it seems to me, is treating the child as a commodity.

Daleth

I don't see this as treating the child as a commodity at all. If a couple conceives and then split up and the woman decides to raise the child herself, the courts award her money from the father because he is partially responsible for the conception and thus has financial responsibility for the child. I don't see anything different in this case where the doctor is partially responsibe for the conception.

I feel bad about the kid's situation as well, but when a mother is receiving child support from an absentee father, she doesn't tell the kid she's getting the money "because Daddy didn't want you to be born." It's really not so much different, emotionally, than the situation of any kid who finds out they were conceived unintentionally but knows they are very much loved and wanted now. It bothers some deeply and others not at all.

christ-on-a-stick

(Bold mine) - I am in complete agreement with this.

enfant terrible

It's a no-brainer. The doctor caused those people a financial loss and must compensate them. How can this be the least bit controversial?

echidna

Because as is eminently obvious, the current growth of litigation & rampant compensation is unsustainable. Misfortunes are not necessarily misfortune any more & in many cases can be quite lucrative. If not for the claimant, at least for the legal profession who generally manage to soak up up to 30% or 50% of the costs, and amazingly are very opposed to any reform to the current system.

These costs are having a crippling effect on the community in actively closing down small community-based activities groups, life guards, volunteer groups, sports who can simply no longer afford the skyrocketing insuarnace premiums.

There is an extremely strong case for flat rate compensations rather than the exorbitant negotiated compensations which knobble insurance companies and sterilise our community of so many "dangerous" and "irrepsonsible" activities. But you'll never get that past the legal profession who are the loudest advocates protecting the current system.

Edited to add : OK, 200K isn't as exorbitant as the multi-million dollar payouts, nonetheless the uncontrolled costs being awarded are having marked effects on the availablity of many medical procedures. Notably a dramatic decline in obstetricians which is causing a widespread shortage now & in the future. I fail to equate the high rates of successful litigation with a necessary benefit to society.