Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on November 15, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

There is a case going through the Australian courts (not America this time) about a woman who was born blind and deaf, suing the doctor that failed to detect rubella in the mother 24 years ago.  She is suing for wrongful life!

Actually, she is not suing as the story states she is not only blind and deaf, but mentally retarded and spastic.  So in actual fact, it is either some greedy lawyer or her parents (who cannot sue because the statute of limitations) that are in actual fact arguing in court that she should have been aborted.  Instead she was born with a lot of defects.

Now lawyers are lawyers the world over, and they are actually not suing to terminate the life, but the lucre of every lawyer, MONEY.  Yet there is a simple answer to this whole stupid mess!  If the woman is found competent, and she did not want to be born, that mistake can be corrected very easily.  Just move to Florida.

But no, the principals in this case, again I doubt seriously that it is the woman, just are filthy greedy leeches that see a way to get some easy fast money, and a lawyer who figures a mult million dollar settlement will also have him sitting pretty for the rest of his life.

The court has already bounced the case once.  They should do so again.  For 2 reasons.  Unlike a wrong death suit, where the damage cannot be undone, the damage (if you call it that) here can easily be undone.  Second, there is no value on a non-life.  While the woman probably has not had the best of lives, apparently she has had one of value so far.  So any monetary award would be a mockery of life itself - basically saying that death is worth more than life (and oh how the wrongful death defendants would use that in their defense).

While this is in Australia, the judges are using foreign precedent (Might as well nominate them for SCOTUS) in their deliberations (specifically a case in California where a court rules parents could sue a doctor because a genetic defect COULD have been passed to the child - it was - and then COULD have resulted in birth defects - it did).

I guess our brothers in the land down under are emulating Americans.  They could have chosen a more appropriate way to show their admiration of us.


Comments
on Nov 15, 2005
I find this most upsetting. The very fact this case has been bounced once yet the family (and lawyer) are going at it again only indicates to me it is money-motivated rather than motivated by some sense of justice or fairness. It is a sad thing indeed and, as you so rightly point out, is not the sort of action I want Australia to start emulating.

Incidentally, and pardon my ignorance, but what is SCOTUS?
on Nov 16, 2005

Incidentally, and pardon my ignorance, but what is SCOTUS?

Sorry, that would be the Supreme Court of the United States.  It was a backhand reference to the liberal members of the court who say that our laws should be ajudicated in light of other nations laws, and not in light of our Constitution.