"Wrongful birth" lawsuit

Portland, Oregon, June 13, 2009 - A South Portland couple, whose two-year-old daughter was born with Down syndrome, are suing their doctor for more than 14 million dollars to cover the costs of raising her and providing her education, medical care and speech and physical therapy. Deborah and Ariel Levey, whom were reportedly given the wrong information after a prenatal test for Down syndrome, say they would have terminated the pregnancy if they had know their daughter had the condition. As reported by the Oregonian:

The Levys declined to be interviewed. Their attorney, David K. Miller, said the toddler is as dear to them as their two older children but they fear being perceived as "heartless."

"They feel very strongly that what happened to them was wrong," Miller said. "They were given incorrect information, and their lives have changed because of it."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said fewer than 10 such suits are filed in the U.S. each year. And in order for the suits to succeed, courts must be willing to rule that "it's better not to exist and give damages for having to exist," Caplan said.

The 1973 decision Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for such suits because parents generally must claim that they would have aborted the
fetus.

The "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life" lawsuits are controversial. High courts in roughly two-thirds of states have allowed the suits. Some states -- including Michigan, Georgia and Utah -- have banned them.

The story in full is here.

Woman's request to abort her fetus with a congenital heart diseases is rejected by Indian court

Via the Associated Press

MUMBAI, India (AP) — An Indian court on Monday rejected a woman's petition to abort her 25-week-old fetus with a congenital heart problem, saying the law does not permit such late-term abortions.

Last month, Niketa Mehta, 31, her husband, Haresh, and their gynecologist, Dr. Nikhil Dattar, petitioned the court to allow an abortion. Their lawyer, Amit Karkhanis, says the couple can't afford to pay for the frequent change of pacemaker that the fetus' condition would require.

The Mehtas, who found out after 24 weeks that the fetus had congenital heart disease, fear the quality of the child's life would suffer, Karkhanis said.

But the Bombay High Court said that it was up to Parliament and not the court to change the provisions of Indian law, which specifies that a pregnancy cannot be terminated after 20 weeks unless the mother faces a medical risk.

India's attention has been riveted on the case, which has sought to challenge the country's 37-year-old Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act that permits abortions after 20 weeks only if there is a risk to the mother.

Abortions are legal in India until the 12th week of pregnancy. Between 12 and 20 weeks abortions are allowed if either the mother or the fetus faces a health risk.

Dattar said he believes the option should have been left to the parents.

"My plea was that the decision is best left to the parents who will take care of the child," he said. "We sought the opinion of many doctors and we were worried about the quality of life the child would have."

The Mehtas did not indicate on Monday whether they would appeal the case in India's highest court, the Supreme Court.

Jayesh Kamath, a member of the Indian Medical Association, described the court's verdict as a victory. "Children with pacemakers can lead full lives," he said. "If this case was accepted, then people could abort babies on any ground."