Woman Takes Birth Control, Falls Pregnant, Sues

[Noomi]

^why should the company be accountable for the costs of raising a child she chose to give birth to?

What if her religion forbids abortion?

Doesn't matter. She still has a choice to have an abortion, no matter what her religion says.

The Pills were mislabeled then recalled. I think she may have a case.

Being a guy, I'm not sure. But aren't the pills in the blister pack color coded and wouldn't the colors have been out of order?>>>>

If the pills are to be taken in a certain order but that order was mixed up at the factory well then, I think she may have a case.

I'm guessing some women only look at the "Day" and not the "Color"? Or maybe this girl's pills were all the same color?

A quick Google shows some packs have different colors and some are all the same.

Most pills are different colors and textures. The 7 day sugar pills have a different look and texture to them - I have been on six different types of BC pills and you can easily tell the difference between the non active and the normal pills. They are made differently so there is no confusion.

 

[Noomi]

I think she has a very good case.

The company pills were faulty.

The company didn't force her to give birth to a baby, did it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why sue for the cost of raising her child? Is she saying she didn't want the baby? She chose to give birth it, therefore she chose to be financially responsible for it. If she really didn't want a baby, she could have had an abortion.

It’s a perfectly legitimate case, and fundamental contract law.

She has a very good case, too:

Lawsuits by other women who became pregnant while taking Qualitest pills have been filed across the US, including California, Texas and Tennessee. A proposed class-action suit was filed in Georgia on behalf of about 200 women who took the pills.

How, exactly, do you think the company can be held liable for all of the cost of raising a child given the fact that, even if taken properly, birth control is not 100% effective? Is thre some sort of implicit guarantee that I am completely unaware of that you are relying on, or do you think the simple fact that a bunch of people are suing somehow makes the suit reasonable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Pills were mislabeled then recalled. I think she may have a case.

She might have a case for getting the price of that month's supply back, but the absolute proof that she does not have a case for what she is asking for is that both Noomi and I agree she does not. That means that a) hell just froze over, or b) the facts are undeniable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think she has a very good case.

The company pills were faulty.

The pills, apparently, were just as potent as they should have been, just taken in the wrong order because the packaging got screwed up somehow. I see no reason the company should have to support a child simply because you think it makes sense. What would be the legal reasoning you would base that on, how would it not apply to a normal does of the pill that just fails because it fails? How do we even know the woman was actually taking the pills properly in the first place? Are we just supposed to assume that she didn't keep them in her sock drawer because she is a woman?

 

[Grandma]

It's highly unlikely that she deliberately hid the pills in her sock drawer. For those of you that don't have kids, trying to hold down even a part-time job when you have a child is difficult unless you have the money for a full-time nanny.

As for having a hysterectomy, most doctors refuse to do that until a woman's in her 40s.

If the pills were mislabeled she has a case. Doesn't mean she'll win.

 

[martybegan]

Why sue for the cost of raising her child? Is she saying she didn't want the baby? She chose to give birth it, therefore she chose to be financially responsible for it. If she really didn't want a baby, she could have had an abortion.

It’s a perfectly legitimate case, and fundamental contract law.

She has a very good case, too:

Lawsuits by other women who became pregnant while taking Qualitest pills have been filed across the US, including California, Texas and Tennessee. A proposed class-action suit was filed in Georgia on behalf of about 200 women who took the pills.

How, exactly, do you think the company can be held liable for all of the cost of raising a child given the fact that, even if taken properly, birth control is not 100% effective? Is thre some sort of implicit guarantee that I am completely unaware of that you are relying on, or do you think the simple fact that a bunch of people are suing somehow makes the suit reasonable?

The two issues are the company made a mistake, opening it up to liablity, and the opposite fact that even if used correctly birth control pills are not 100% effective.

The best she could hope for is a small settlement, as she did have options, abortion or adoption. To me the furthest it could go would be to cover the cost of the pills, the cost of an abortion, or the cost of the birth. after that the company does not have any true liability as there are other options besides raising the kid.

If she really really didnt want to become pregnant, she should have used two BC methods. In Engineering her use of pills only is considered "one method of control" and is typically not considered safe. Two methods of control is preferred (tying off workers working at heights and providing fall nets, for example is two methods of control).

 

[Noomi]

I think she has a very good case.

The company pills were faulty.

The pills, apparently, were just as potent as they should have been, just taken in the wrong order because the packaging got screwed up somehow. I see no reason the company should have to support a child simply because you think it makes sense. What would be the legal reasoning you would base that on, how would it not apply to a normal does of the pill that just fails because it fails? How do we even know the woman was actually taking the pills properly in the first place? Are we just supposed to assume that she didn't keep them in her sock drawer because she is a woman?

Exactly. We are to somehow assume that she was taking them correctly for all these years, and never forgot to take one at the right time. We also don't know whether they may have failed even if they had been correctly labeled.

Besides, she had other options if she didn't want a baby. A coil, an implant, something like that, instead of relying solely on a pill for 12 years.

 

[koshergrl]

Or she could have just kept her legs shut.

 

[freedombecki]

Yep. She took BC for 12 years because she didn't want kids, then got pregnant.
Okay, so the company did stuff up and put the inactive pills in the spaces where the active pills should have gone, but still.

She gave birth to a baby girl and is now suing the company that made those pills, for costs of raising her child.

A WOMAN, a self-confessed workaholic, had been taking a contraceptive pill for 12 years was devastated when she fell pregnant.
Access all Areas. $1 for the first 28 days. Only $2.95 a week thereafter. Learn more.

"I was devastated," Shanta Russell, 33, told The Kansas City Star. "I questioned myself. After all these years, how could this happen? Of course I was angry. There was nothing I did that was a mistake."

Shanta had bought a home pregnancy test after missing a period in June 2011. Dumbfounded by the positive result, she took the test two more times.

"I couldn't get over the fact it was happening," she said.

She had two jobs, had a passion for travel, had planned to undertake further education to work in health care.

Three months later Shanta received a recall notice of her birth control pills from Qualitest Pharmaceuticals in the mail, warning that the contraceptive pills she had taken may have been placed in the wrong order in their blister packs.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

Why sue for the cost of raising her child? Is she saying she didn't want the baby? She chose to give birth it, therefore she chose to be financially responsible for it. If she really didn't want a baby, she could have had an abortion.

I'm with Shanta.The company that made the pills screwed up. Let them pay for their mistake.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yep. She took BC for 12 years because she didn't want kids, then got pregnant.
Okay, so the company did stuff up and put the inactive pills in the spaces where the active pills should have gone, but still.

She gave birth to a baby girl and is now suing the company that made those pills, for costs of raising her child.

A WOMAN, a self-confessed workaholic, had been taking a contraceptive pill for 12 years was devastated when she fell pregnant.
Access all Areas. $1 for the first 28 days. Only $2.95 a week thereafter. Learn more.

"I was devastated," Shanta Russell, 33, told The Kansas City Star. "I questioned myself. After all these years, how could this happen? Of course I was angry. There was nothing I did that was a mistake."

Shanta had bought a home pregnancy test after missing a period in June 2011. Dumbfounded by the positive result, she took the test two more times.

"I couldn't get over the fact it was happening," she said.

She had two jobs, had a passion for travel, had planned to undertake further education to work in health care.

Three months later Shanta received a recall notice of her birth control pills from Qualitest Pharmaceuticals in the mail, warning that the contraceptive pills she had taken may have been placed in the wrong order in their blister packs.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

Why sue for the cost of raising her child? Is she saying she didn't want the baby? She chose to give birth it, therefore she chose to be financially responsible for it. If she really didn't want a baby, she could have had an abortion.

I'm with Shanta.The company that made the pills screwed up. Let them pay for their mistake.

What should they pay for? The cost of the meds that were faulty? Medical expenses for the birth? Lifetime support for mother and child?

 

[AmyNation]

I think she has a very good case.

The company pills were faulty.

The company didn't force her to give birth to a baby, did it?

What she choose to do after she found out she was preganant is unimportant. That's her business, her decision.

The company produced a defective product and as a direct result of that defect she became pregnant.


I'm betting the company settles out of court.

 

[koshergrl]

Her choice was to keep the baby.

Her decision, her expense.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm not disputing that. I think she won't get all that she's suing for either. However the company can't deny that they sold her a defective product, and I'm thinking they will settle out of court with her rather than risk going to trial and all the expense that goes with it.

 

[koshergrl]

There is a name for this...it's "Wrongful Birth". I was working in an office where a client sought representation...his wife, after something like 7 children, had something happen to one of her ovaries; I don't remember if it was a cyst or what, but it was removed. After the 7th child, she was supposed to get the other one tied or cut....well she got pregnant again and they discovered the doc had cut the wrong one.

We didn't take the case, though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think she has a very good case.

The company pills were faulty.

The company didn't force her to give birth to a baby, did it?

What she choose to do after she found out she was preganant is unimportant. That's her business, her decision.

The company produced a defective product and as a direct result of that defect she became pregnant.


I'm betting the company settles out of court.

I am betting she won't get lifetime support for her kid. She might get a 5 figure college scholarship that won't mature until the child's 18th birthday.

 

[AmyNation]

The company didn't force her to give birth to a baby, did it?

What she choose to do after she found out she was preganant is unimportant. That's her business, her decision.

The company produced a defective product and as a direct result of that defect she became pregnant.


I'm betting the company settles out of court.

I am betting she won't get lifetime support for her kid. She might get a 5 figure college scholarship that won't mature until the child's 18th birthday.

Yup.

I think she's shooting for the moon and hoping they decide to offer a settlement, which I'm thinking they will simply to save on attorney fees and publicity.

 

[freedombecki]

Yep. She took BC for 12 years because she didn't want kids, then got pregnant.
Okay, so the company did stuff up and put the inactive pills in the spaces where the active pills should have gone, but still.

She gave birth to a baby girl and is now suing the company that made those pills, for costs of raising her child.

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

Why sue for the cost of raising her child? Is she saying she didn't want the baby? She chose to give birth it, therefore she chose to be financially responsible for it. If she really didn't want a baby, she could have had an abortion.

I'm with Shanta.The company that made the pills screwed up. Let them pay for their mistake.

What should they pay for? The cost of the meds that were faulty? Medical expenses for the birth? Lifetime support for mother and child?

The whole nine yards. I'm such a meanie. :devil: