ethical question

should people be alowed to sue for prenatal damage

  • Total voters
    12
Personally I think it is irresponsible to drink or smoke while pregnant. While you have a little life growing inside, you should be doing everything possible to make sure you and the baby stay healthy.

I am just wondering how you plan on suing a mother, unless you have absolute proof that a disability or health problem was brought on by smoking or drinking. Sometimes, actually a lot of times the mother did everything right and the baby is still born with problems.
 
i agree and i dont think just because a kid is born blind the mother should be sued. What im saying is that when there is a patten of behavor which has been shown to increase the risk like drinking and you are born mentally retared because of FSB should you have legal recorse for your mothers actions

After all people have been convicted in criminal law for less than holding a gun and standing over a dead that had been shot body (ie being know to have been drinking during pregancy and having a child with FSB)

i actually herd of a fictional story where the father of a fetus to an acholic mother went to court to get an injuntion FORCING her to stay off achole for the term of the pregnacy after she had decided to keep the fetus. I dont know how much legal standing this would have but it is quite a nice concept that unless she choses to abort the mother actually has to take responcability for the conquences of her actions, in the same way that people with infectious STD's are legally required to inform there partners and practice safe sex.

There is a further thing which you may wish to concider in all this and that is the conquences on sociaty. For instance a child born mentally retarded takes up health and social services resorces. In fact the mother who caused the issue COULD under Australian tax and social security law claim a cares pention to look after the child even though she was directly responcable for the damage.

Thats like taking a baseball bat to someones head and then being paid to be there carer
 
On booze and addiction, at least

Asguard said:

i actually herd of a fictional story where the father of a fetus to an acholic mother went to court to get an injuntion FORCING her to stay off achole for the term of the pregnacy after she had decided to keep the fetus.
Click to expand...

A curious historical note. Some years ago—I think the late '80s—liquor manufacturers started putting warning labels on their products similar to those on cigarettes. This came about because of one of my neighbors. Or, more specifically, her sister. The child was born with FAS, and the mother sued one or another distillery. I think it was Jack Daniels. Of course, it came out during this whole fiasco that, while pregnant, she consumed something like a fifth and a half of whiskey a day.

Something about lawyers goes here. I'm just not sure what.

To the other, alcoholism is considered, in many aspects, a disease. The reality of addiction is that mothers who are addicts that clean themselves up while pregnant are—and will be until we get better resources and methods for treatment—a severe minority.

This, of course, raises the impression that one is suing someone for being sick. At least, that's an American take on the problem.
 
Perhaps once a woman is found to be pregnant we should lock her up in a padded cell and only provide approved food. Then, once the child is born, the state can seize the child to ensure that the child isn't turned into a rapist by an episode of corporal punishment when it's 2 years old.

You know, even this might be too risky. Perhaps all women should be fitted with chastity belts to ensure that they don't unknowingly concieve any children that then might be exposed to maternal smoking or drinking!

Then, if a woman decides she wants to have a child, we can remove the chastity belt only under government supervision. Once the woman engages in a sex act, she will be incarcerated until such a time as conception can be confirmed or denied. If conception has occured, then she remains imprisoned until the child is born and seized by the state. If conception has not occured, she can try again so long as she remains under governnent supervision.

Remember, there are no parental rights, only responsibilities. Everything that is not forbidden, is mandatory.
 
Last edited:
Asguard said:
concidering the attitudes in the smacking thread i am wondering peoples atitudes to people suing there parents (usually there mother for ovious reasons) for things done during pregnancy which lead to avoidable disabilities for the person

for instance fetal achole syndrome, babies who are born adicted to narcotics and babies effected by mothers smoking during pregancy

should these people have the right to legal recorse for the damage there mother's "choices" have caused to them?

i dont have a link to an actual story for 2 reasons

1) i have mostly herd of this happering in the US rather than Australia
2) i havent herd of a case like this in a long time


Now this issue is complicated because these can never be criminal offences and unless the child is born there is no way to enforce these issues. however the actual act of chosing to keep a child who is exposed to these could be concidered child abuse
Click to expand...

Sometimes life gives you chocolates, sometimes it gives you something else.
Should the people who have down syndrome and were born despite their parents knowing about it, sue their parents ?, no ? You aren't born yet, and whoever will care for you in the early years will suffer for their mistreatment in the later years. The mother who smokes will have to look after you. If they don't, then sue them (if you want).

You are what you are, Your mother/parents will have to live with the damage that they do to you. Just like those mothers that beat their children, only to be beaten when they become teens.
 
Tiassa said:
A note for Ophiolite:

I'm pretty sure I've written shorter posts than my initial response to the topic, even barring the deliberate and smugly humorous such as my prior reply to your inquiry, contributions to the "Political Cartoons" thread, hostile one-liners, and posts in "The Menagerie". However, I'm not sure where to start looking for them, so it seemed at the time worthwhile to offer a one-word denial. Please forgive my flippancy.

:cool:
[/font]
Click to expand...
I liked it. I am just not sure how I failed to anticipate it.:shrug::bawl:
 
mad i find it facinating that you cant distinguish between what we already regard as criminal neglect and child endangerment and a padded cell.
 
my mum didnt smoke or drink while she was carrieing me, but i can sue my mum for abuse and lack of care, i can also sue the doctors that negelected my care, i think its ok for kids to sue they're perants, because if they have screwed up the life of they're child then they should pay for the neglect and abuse they caused
 
lucifers angel said:
my mum didnt smoke or drink while she was carrieing me, but i can sue my mum for abuse and lack of care, i can also sue the doctors that negelected my care, i think its ok for kids to sue they're perants, because if they have screwed up the life of they're child then they should pay for the neglect and abuse they caused
Click to expand...

So we're going to parent for them now ? They already suffer having to care for them, if they don't, then by all means sue them.
Again, should a person born with down syndrome sue his parents for not terminating him ?,
 
no challanger, that isnt a result of a parents choice any more than if your child falls out of a tree and ends up a paraplegic

we are talking about actions which if the child was born would carry jail sentances
 
Asguard said:
no challanger, that isnt a result of a parents choice any more than if your child falls out of a tree and ends up a paraplegic

we are talking about actions which if the child was born would carry jail sentances
Click to expand...

But isn't the punishment of caring for them enough ?
 
no actually its not.

ok take a senario, someone beats you to the point you are in a wheel chair for the rest of your life, you cant even feed yourself, you cant control your bladder or bowls and you drible all the time.

basically your life sucks

now would an apropriate penelty be to care for you everyday until they can pass you off to a nursing home after a couple of years with a "there you go, thank me now"

is that an apropriate penelty?
 
Asguard said:
no actually its not.

ok take a senario, someone beats you to the point you are in a wheel chair for the rest of your life, you cant even feed yourself, you cant control your bladder or bowls and you drible all the time.

basically your life sucks

now would an apropriate penelty be to care for you everyday until they can pass you off to a nursing home after a couple of years with a "there you go, thank me now"

is that an apropriate penelty?
Click to expand...


Right, and suing allows them to be put in a better home ?
 
Asguard said:
mad i find it facinating that you cant distinguish between what we already regard as criminal neglect and child endangerment and a padded cell.
Click to expand...
It's just the next step down the road you're traveling. But why just focus on fetal alcohol syndrome and smoking? What about Spina bifida? Women with a diet lacking in plant proteins, iron, magnesium, and niacin may be up to five times more likely to have a baby with spina bifida! A 500% increased risk just because mom didn't take the correct vitamins or eat the right food!

And what about women with gestational diabetes who refuse to go on insulin because they're afraid of needles? Their babies are at increased risk for macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, perinatal mortality, congenital malformation, hyperbilirubinemia, polycythemia, hypocalcemia, and respiratory distress syndrome. Long term, they're at increased risk of developing diabetes themselves and being obese.

There is not a legal answer to every problem. Being a parent is hard enough without adding the concern of being sued because the child has some disability.

I can just see some jackass lawyer filing a class action suit on behalf of all children born with Down's syndrome. He'd bankrupt all the parents (who are, most likely, the one's supporting the disabled children.), collect millions, and then send each child with Down's syndrome a check for fifty cents. Meanwhile, the children have become homeless due to their parents having to spend their life savings in legal fees and declare bankruptcy due to the settlement.

Suffice to say, it's a very bad idea.
 
Last edited:
So the mother is only responsible for the health of the child once it comes out of the womb? That's a rather... interesting concept.
 
I voted "yes", and be prosecuted criminally, to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty.
 
If I was a fetal alcohol syndrome baby I would consider it. If I had the brain capacity to do so.
How would a damaged child sue? Wouldn't someone have to sue for them?
 
there is a goverment department in SA called the office of the public trustie which handles all the finances of people who for one reason or another cant do it themselves.

This definitly includes nerological reasons and some psychological reasons but im not sure how far they go (if for instance a compulsive gambler could request they handle there finances)

Then there is the guardianship board who could apoint someone to take an action on there behalf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top