In early March of this year, a couple in Oregon filed suit against a doctor for not disclosing that their daughter had Down Syndrome. They said that if they had known, they would have terminated. This is obviously raising a lot of eyebrows. Even some pro-choicers are saying that even if they would have terminated, why would they file such a high profile lawsuit just to have their child read when she's older that her parents would have terminated her if only they had known her fate. However, the couple is saying that they only filed the suit to secure her financial future.
Of course when a couple is faced with a diagnosis such as Down Syndrome, there are endless factors to consider. For example, will they be able to financially support a special needs child. How will it affect the life of any other existing siblings? Are they mentally prepared for such a challenge? How bad are the child's defects currently, and how bad are they likely to get? But this couple didn't get that chance. In 2006, the couple paid $2,500 out-of-pocket for a CVS (Chorionic Villus Sampling), which came back normal...indicating that their daughter would be born "normal" and healthy. Two ultrasounds in the following weeks noted abnormalities, but they were reassured that their daughter did not have the trisomy. Clearly, the CVS results were misread, and not further investigated once abnormalities presented on ultrasound.
The couple in the center, the Levy's, have not said why they would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known (though I'm guessing finances would have been a factor), but they are relieved, to say the least, that they won their case. They were awarded $3M to help with the lifetime of costs that will need to be paid. Experts have told the Levy's that their daughter will never be able to support herself or live independently.
In my opinion, people are looking at this the wrong way. These people were not given the chance to properly prepare for the challenges they, as a family, or their daughter would have. Since they were not informed, they sought financial compensation to aid in the raising of their special needs daughter. It was ballsy of them to admit they would have terminated, and they're definitely reaping the backlash. But I don't for one second think they were out of line to fight for help with their daughter's care.
What do you think?