Right Attitude, Wrongful Birth

Recently on various social networks a campaign has been in full swing to educate the public about updates, photos, and jokes regarding those with mental or physical disabilities. “Spread the Word to End the Word” (referring to the “R” word), has generated a well-spring of positive, life-affirming activism that crosses the lines of race, creed, and age. In addition, the Arizona State legislature is ready to pass a law preventing “Wrongful Birth” lawsuits, adding themselves to Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah.

It seems we are growing as a culture.

Science has also made us more aware of the fact that none of us is qualified to judge what a life is “worth.” The life expectancy for a child with Downs Syndrome, for example, was age 9 in 1910, age of 25 in 1983, and is age 60 today.

Still, this change in attitude cannot possibly compete with the millions of dollars lawyers can make in “Wrongful Birth” lawsuits.

Go ahead, Google it. Check out all the ads. Rather disgusting if you ask me

Last week a jury awarded a nice chunk of change to a Portland-area couple whose daughter was born with Down Syndrome even though a prenatal test (tests purported to have an 80% false positive rate) found she didn't have the chromosomal abnormality. Taking less than six hours before reaching a verdict, Legacy Health System was ordered to pay Ariel and Deborah Levy nearly three million dollars.

While it’s predicted that a dozen states will have bans on “Wrongful Birth” lawsuits by the end of 2012, Oregon appears to be behind the times, moral and scientifically. And our great state of New York? We allow “Wrongful Life” suits, brought by our children.

Heaven help us.

The first “Wrongful Birth” lawsuit was New Jersey’s Gleitman v. Cosgrove in 1966. Told by her doctors that her rubella would not affect her child, a mother sued the medical staff because the child was born with various congenital abnormalities. The court rejected the case as illegitimate, stating:

“It is basic to the human condition to seek life and hold onto it, however heavily burdened….The right to life is inalienable in our society. A court cannot say what defect should prevent an embryo from being allowed life…The sanctity of a single human life is the decisive factor in this suit in tort. Eugenic considerations are not controlling…We firmly believe the right of the child to live is greater than and precludes their right not to endure emotional and financial distress.”

Such sentiment has become nearly obsolete now, as “Wrongful Birth” lawsuits became the norm once abortion was legalized in 1973.

Campaigns against the “R” word need to be followed up with an end to “WBLS.”