This just makes me sad.. Poor baby just put her up for adoption if you dont want her.

[Lovebears65]

Couple sues hospital for ‘wrongful birth’ of daughter born with down syndrome they would have aborted - Mr. Conservative

 

[Sallow]

Step up.

Adopt her.

 

[Si modo]

What a colossally stupid law suit.

 

[Lovebears65]

Step up.

Adopt her.

I would in a heart beat. The parents are not giving her up. What do you expect me to do kidnap her

 

[Sallow]

What a colossally stupid law suit.

Why is it stupid?

They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.

 

[Si modo]

What a colossally stupid law suit.

Why is it stupid?

They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.

And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.

I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.

 

[paperview]

Seems some things were missing from "Mr. Conservative's" account:

Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.


"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."

$2.9M awarded to parents of girl in a wrongful birth suit - 12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas

The child is 4 now. Ironically, the parents have been receiving death threats from "pro-lifers."

 

[Sallow]

What a colossally stupid law suit.

Why is it stupid?

They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.

And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.

I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.

Modo..this makes no sense. I'd like to see the source article by the way. But even this one, which advocates that the suit is stupid, admits that the hospital completely screwed up.

 

[Si modo]

Seems some things were missing from "Mr. Conservative's" account:

Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.


"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."

$2.9M awarded to parents of girl in a wrongful birth suit - 12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas

The child is 4 now. Ironically, the parents have been receiving death threats from "pro-lifers."

From the OP link:

The three million dollars in the suit is estimated to be the cost of their baby’s dependence for a lifetime.​

What was missed again?





Got a link to the death threats you claim are happening?

 

[Sallow]

Seems some things were missing from "Mr. Conservative's" account:

Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.


"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."

$2.9M awarded to parents of girl in a wrongful birth suit - 12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas

The child is 4 now. Ironically, the parents have been receiving death threats from "pro-lifers."

Gotta love that. The same folks that advocate for "forced births" have no trouble with war, executions and "righteous" killings of abortion doctors or people they just don't like.

 

[jillian]

What a colossally stupid law suit.

Why is it stupid?

They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.

And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.

I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.

no one is adopting a down's child...

but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.

there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.

there's also no cause of action for wrongful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.

 

[Si modo]

Why is it stupid?

They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.

And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.

I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.

no one is adopting a down's child...

but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.

there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.

there's also no cause of action for unlawful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.

I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.

 

[WillowTree]

If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..

 

[Si modo]

If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..

The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.

 

[WillowTree]

If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..

The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.

I wonder why that particular picture is there then, don't you?

 

[Mr. H.]

"...cost them the chance to abort..."

Another "throwaway baby" opportunity lost. What a shame.

17 years ago, we too had an incorrect health screening. Diagnosis? Down's Syndrome.
It was suggested that we go down to the coffee shop to "discuss our options" (doctor's words).
For a moment we sat there in stunned silence but neither of us had a doubt in our minds.

If I remember correctly, my wife's exact words were "that's life- you take what's dealt". I agreed.

She's a perfectly healthy 16 year old, straight A student, and on her way this fall to an international arts academy to finish out high school and train in ballet (which she's been dancing since age 4).

People astound me in a very pathetic sort of way.

 

[jillian]

And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.

I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.

no one is adopting a down's child...

but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.

there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.

there's also no cause of action for wrongful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.

I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.

no. mitigation is required in specific instances. in this case, if you're suggesting that mitigation would require they divest themselves of the child, i can't imagine any court requiring that. in the first place, i would think it would be against public policy. In the second case, once again, the money is the child's for iher care NO MATTER WHO TAKES CARE OF HER.

 

[Si modo]

If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..

The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.

I wonder why that particular picture is there then, don't you?

Yup. As you said, she is adorable, so that's a good way of generating emotions. But, I'm just speculating, so who knows?

 

[Si modo]

no one is adopting a down's child...

but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.

there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.

there's also no cause of action for wrongful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.

I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.

no. mitigation is required in specific instances. in this case, if you're suggesting that mitigation would require they divest themselves of the child, i can't imagine any court requiring that. in the first place, i would think it would be against public policy. In the second case, once again, the money is the child's for iher care NO MATTER WHO TAKES CARE OF HER.

I do understand that. Was the suit brought forth in her name, then?

And, Paperview's link said the money was already awarded. I imagine the court sees this the same way as you do. If I had been on the jury, I also would have voted for some award. I would not have voted for that much, for sure. I imagine this is going to appeal.

 

[Mr. H.]

Our "Down's baby"...