Tim Worstall

Not Sure There’s Much Chance Here.

A basic point of law, isn’t it?

A lesbian couple are seeking damages from their doctor after one
gave birth to twins after fertility treatment, rather than a single baby.


The women, who cannot be named, are suing Robert Armellin for more than
A$400,000 (£167,000) to cover the cost of raising one of the twin girls
until the age of 21.


The birth-mother of the girls, who are now aged 3, told the Supreme Court in
Canberra that Dr Armellin implanted two embryos, when she had told him
minutes before the IVF procedure in November 2003 that she only wanted one.

Having a child is not something that requires compensation?

In

12 responses

  1. james C Avatar
    james C

    ‘Having a child is not something that requires compensation?’
    I very much doubt that this is a ‘basic point of law’.
    Tim adds: Sorry, Common Law principle then. I’m sure there has been a judgement making that point. That you are not due compensation for having a child.

    Reply
  2. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    The doctor ought to invoice them for the second baby as well.

    Reply
  3. Ian Bennett Avatar
    Ian Bennett

    Sorry, Mark; Unsolicited Goods and Services Act (or whatever the Oz equivalent might be). If they didn’t ask for the second embryo, he’s not allowed to charge for it.
    I don’t think there’s a law preventing him from telling them to piss off and stop being stupid though.

    Reply
  4. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    So handy: they can keep one each when they split up.

    Reply
  5. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    Ian, fair point.

    Reply
  6. Effing and Blinding Avatar
    Effing and Blinding

    Or he can offer to take the child himself and offer to raise that child. If the woman says ‘no’ then she has not discharged her duty to mitigate her loss, case over.

    Reply
  7. windowlicker Avatar
    windowlicker

    I was going to suggest Dr Armellin offer to perform one of those rare but necessary 195-week abortions. But E ‘n’ B’s solution truly has the wisdom of Solomon.

    Reply
  8. Internet Ronin Avatar
    Internet Ronin

    I like both Windowlicker & Effing & Blinding’s suggestions. Tim’s is the most most commonsensical answer but we all know that commonsense and the law ceased being bedfellows a few decades ago. Anyone doubt that this was a “lawsuit-waiting-to-happen” no matter what the doctor did? Had he planted only one embryo, and it did not make it, she would probably have sued him, alleging that she was obviously drugged and incoherent and that he shoul not have listened to her.

    Reply
  9. james C Avatar
    james C

    ‘Tim adds: Sorry, Common Law principle then. I’m sure there has been a judgement making that point. That you are not due compensation for having a child.’
    Again, I doubt this very much-otherwise,why would this case be heard in the Australian Supreme Court?
    Tim adds: Err, the reason that a case is heard in a Supreme Court is that it goes against the generally accepted principles of the currrent legal system. This is, under a Common Law system, where such changes are decided. The very fact that it has reached this level of the legal system is evidence that a change in the previously accepted law is being considered.

    Reply
  10. james C Avatar
    james C

    ‘. The very fact that it has reached this level of the legal system is evidence that a change in the previously accepted law is being considered.’
    I don’t think this is right-the supreme Court deals with all claims above a threshold.

    Reply
  11. Serf Avatar
    Serf

    This case made me livid.
    I looked at my IVF twins and swore at the callousness of someone who could regard the second one as a burden. They are lucky to be parents at all. More than ½ of IVF attempts fail, even with more than one embryo.

    Reply
  12. Marcin Tustin Avatar
    Marcin Tustin

    No Tim, this is not a basic principle of the common law. It happens to be the law of England since some time in the 1990s that one cannot sue for being caused to have a child, or for being born, but that doesn’t make it a basic part of the common law.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to windowlickerCancel reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading