Brittany Donovan was born with mental impairments as a result of a genetic disorder known as fragile X syndrome. Now at age thirteen, she is suing the “sperm bank that provided her with a biological father” under product liability laws. These are the same laws that individuals use to sue companies that sold defected products that caused injury to the buyer, for example faulty car brakes that resulted in an accident. How can one apply product liability laws to the sperm bank when they did not manufacture the sperm? If you buy a faulty product do you sue the store where you bought it or the company that manufactured it? Furthermore, in order to test a sperm for defects it would have to be completely destroyed so that its DNA could be analyzed, which makes it impossible to test each individual sperm before insemination. Surely if Brittany wants to sue for product liability, she should not be suing the sperm bank but instead she should be suing her biological father. However, if Brittany were allowed to sue her biological father, it would open the floodgates for many similar cases? Any child with any genetic defect would be able to sue their parents.
Sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227032.400-sperm-bank-sued-under-product-liability-law.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Another frivolous lawsuit.
When I say frivolous, that is not to undermine the damage done to the young Brittany Donovan. I fully acknowledge that fragile X syndrome and its associated mental retardation are devastating. But is litigation against the sperm bank really appropriate? Must we always find someone to blame when things do not go as planned?
Liability should not be determined by the damage caused, but by the ability of the company to prevent such an occurrence. If I am injured by tripping over a piece of old, cracked concrete, would it be reasonable for me to sue the company that made the concrete? Of course not, since it is the nature of cement to crack over time. The jutting piece of pavement that caused my fall is not the responsibility of the company. Accidents happen. That’s life.
Likewise, while Brittany’s condition is definitely unfortunate, that in itself does not justify finger-pointing. There need not be a scapegoat for every situation that is less than ideal. Alan is correct in saying that there is no possible way to inspect an individual sperm for defects without rendering it unusable to the customer. Thus, there is always a risk that a rare mutation may occur in a sperm, which would not be detected by even the most thorough screening process. The possibility that a baby conceived by artificial insemination might not be healthy is real and unavoidable. The word “unavoidable” is key.
Alan proposed that the precedent set by this case could allow children with genetic diseases to sue their own parents. I would like to take it even farther. It is not inconceivable that someone would reference this case to justify suing a sperm bank—or even his or her biological parents—for emotional damages (“pain and suffering”) because of a non-medical condition or trait that resulted from so-called “bad genes.” Any shallow and insecure girl desiring bigger breasts could sue her parents for passing on the “flat-chested gene,” and use the monetary damages awarded to her to pay for implants. An aspiring singer who has the rotten luck of being tone deaf could sue whoever conceived him for the amount of money he would have made as a pop star.
Does anyone really think that is a good idea?
If politics has taught us anything, it is that rarely does anything good come of playing the “blame game.” The constant threat of litigation has already had a deleterious impact on the efficiency of the medical field, and now it appears to be creeping into the realm of assisted reproductive technologies. Allowing profit-hungry lawyers to run amok and pursue lawsuits like this one is ill-advised to say the least.
Post a Comment