Court awards damages to disabled child for having been born
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7393.784/b (Published 12 April 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:784
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The news item, “Court awards damages to disabled child for having
been born”, by Tony Sheldon, Utrecht, includes the following paragraph.
“Joseph Hubben, professor of health law at the Free University of
Amsterdam, said: "To recognise a disabled life as a source of financial
damages gives the wrong signal to society. Disabled people should be
fellow citizens not someone who should have been aborted." He also argued
that the decision would increase pressure for more prenatal diagnostic
testing not just from parents but also from doctors.” [ BMJ 2003;326:784 (
12 April )]
It would be interesting to understand the philosophy which promotes
this idea. It is bad enough to be severely disabled iatrogenically after
birth; but for the knowledge that such severe disability might ensue from
the time of conception, and for this to be ignored by medical
professionals is surely not only negligent but lacks an understanding of
the purpose of life.
I can only assume that once again we have a dogmatic approach from a
‘right to life’ advocate. Can anyone really admit that they would like to
have been born with these disabilities? Further if one is born under these
circumstances, and cannot give any indication of one's desires of any
sort, is it not pertinent that these lives should be made as good as
possible by dint of compensation?
As always in these circumstances, each case needs to be determined on
its outcome. There cannot reasonably be a ‘policy’ that covers all cases.
If a signal was to be given to society from Professor Hubben’s beliefs,
then it would be that society does not care how much difficulty and pain
you have from your disabled life, you have just got to put up with it.
Competing interests:
Father of a vaccine-damaged child
Competing interests: No competing interests
French obstetricians
Was it only last year that the French Obstetricians went on strike
for the same reason, that a child sued someone for missing an abnormality?
How far can we be held responsible?
Competing interests:
obstetric ultrasound
Competing interests: No competing interests