Ariel & Deborah Levy Said They Would Have Aborted Daughter If They Knew She Had Downs

[Whisper]

Victory for couple who said they 'would have aborted daughter if they knew she had Down's syndrome' as jury forces hospital to pay $2.9million following botched test
A prenatal test showed couple's daughter would be 'normal and healthy'
Shocked when blood tests after the birth confirmed the baby had Down's
Botched test 'had taken sample from the mother rather than the foetus'
Say they love their daughter - but have received death threats over the case

A couple who sued a hospital for not telling them their unborn child has Down's syndrome has been awarded a $2.9million payout.

Ariel and Deborah Levy, who say they would have had an abortion if they had known the child would be disabled, claimed they needed the money to pay for their daughter Kalanit's lifelong care.

And a jury agreed, deciding on Friday that Oregon's Legacy Health hospital had been negligent in failing to diagnose the condition in a pre-natal scan.

The hospital is considering appealing the verdict, but the Levys' lawyer urged them to 'let this case finally come to an end'

The couple from Portland, who have two other children, said in a lawsuit they would have aborted their daughter Kalanit - who is now four - if they had known she had Down's syndrome.

Although they say they love Kalanit and treat her the same as their other children, the Levys demanded a huge payout from the hospital to pay for the extra medical care she requires.

They accused the hospital of being 'negligent in their performance, analysis and reporting' after misreading Mrs Levy's ultrasound scan.

Their lawyer David Miller said the parents had launched their lawsuit in an effort to care for Kalanit better.
'These are parents who love this little girl very, very much,' he said. 'Their mission since the beginning was to provide for her and that's what this is all about.'

After the jury awarded the couple $2.9million, a spokesman for Legacy said the organisation disputed the decision.

'While Legacy Health has great respect for the judicial process, we are disappointed in today's verdict,' he said.

'The legal team from Legacy Health will be reviewing the record and considering available options.'

But Mr Miller said: 'I would hope that Legacy would embrace this jury verdict and let this case finally come to an end.'
The case could have far-reaching - and questionable - implications for children born with with conditions such as Down's.
There are fewer than 10 'wrongful birth' cases in the U.S. every year as prenatal tests are 99.7 per cent accurate - and few parents want to face a legal challenge if they do fail, the Oregonian reported.
Yet experts believe there could be a boom in the lawsuits as women in their late 30s and 40s are increasingly having babies and relying on genetic screenings to signal problems, the paper added.
Civil engineer Ariel and dental hygienist Deborah, who say they love Kalanit and intend to give her the same opportunities they have given their sons, were stunned when hospital staff told them she appeared to have Down's.
CHORIONIC VILLUS SAMPLING
Tests carried out before a baby is born to determine whether they have any genetic disorders is called chorionic villus sampling, or CVS for short.
It usually takes place between the 10th and 12th week of a pregnancy,.
The test is not given to every expectant mother, but some factors give rise to it.

It is carried out if a woman has abnormal screen results in the first trimester of her pregnancy, or if there is a family history of genetic disorders or chromosome abnormalities.
Women over the age of 35 are also encouraged to have the test, as there is an increased risk of Down syndrome.
It involves taking tissue from the foetus while in the womb and screening this sample for abnormalities.
Deborah Levy, 39, told doctors she had taken a test - a chorionic villus sampling, or CVS for short - before the birth and that the results had showed their child would be normal.
'We were told we had nothing to worry about,' Ariel Levy told jurors.
But days after Kalanit was born, her mother was taking her to the doctor 'to show her off' and he delivered the blow - a blood test confirmed the baby had Down's. 'It was devastating,' Mrs Levy said.
Mr Miller claimed in the case that Dr Thomas Jenkins removed tissue in the womb from Mrs Levy, rather than from the baby, when he carried out the procedure at the clinic.
The suit points the blame at the doctor and lab workers who did not realise they were testing maternal tissue, the Oregonian reported.
It also suggests that two later ultrasounds carried out by Legacy showed traits of the syndrome, yet staff failed to recognise these, and assured Mrs Levy her baby would be born normal and healthy.
Yet the attorneys for the defense claim Jenkins and the staff followed correct procedures. He suggested the problem was that the girl has mosaic Down syndrome.
Whereas most people with the condition have cells containing an extra 21st chromosome, a significant number of Kalanit's cells did not, Jenkins said. Nearly 31 per cent were normal.

Yet Mr Miller countered that obviously 100 per cent of the cells taken in the CVS test were normal - as they had wrongly been taken from the mother.
He added that tests carried out after Kalanit was born show there is less than one or two per cent normal cells.
Reports have previously quoted the lawsuit as demanding as much as $14 million to cover the cost of the young girl's care

The couple has already whipped up a frenzy of hate and abuse for their comments over aborting their beloved daughter. Miller said they have received death threats.
The couple met in preschool, attended the same high school and college and married in 2000. Civil engineer Ariel and dental hygienist Deborah, both 39, are orthodox Jewish, according to Facebook.
Their sons are in third grade and kindergarten. The boys, shown hugging their younger sister tightly in photographs, are bright - one has placed in the 99th percentile on standardised tests.
[...]
Due to her age, the couple was vigilant about testing, undergoing the CVS at 13 weeks. It is believed one in 250 women at that age give birth to a child with Down syndrome.
Studies suggest that more than 89 per cent of women choose to abort a fetus with Down syndrome.
After their daughter was born with the syndrome, the Levys expressed their fears over her future, including medical and social issues, and whether she would get the required educational support.
Experts have told them she will probably not be able to live on her own or support herself, the Oregonian reported. It is estimated she will live until her mid-50s.

She is able to speak in two-word sentences which only her parents and a few others understand, according to the Oregonian.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1p3Q7yzNN

Parents: Ariel, left, and Deborah Levy, right, claim they have received death threats for their comments

[Mega Ultra]

I don't have children, but I don't think these parents are bad parents or even resent their daughter. Sure, they ssy they would have aborted had they known they'd have a downs child but that was before they knew their daughter. Special needs children need more attention and (I think) have more costs that maybe they didn't think they could provide.

Those screenings aren't free through health coverage I don't think, so if they paid for the test, they should have gotten the right results and the hospital is to blame for not taking the right fluids. This is an interesting case.

[malq]

This is an interesting case,
For one, it is a wonder to me that we are so dependent on accurate technology to tell us information about the forecoming birth. While I think we should use that to our advantage, It scares me that people are holding other people responsible for their birth. Births are inherent risks no matter how you look at it. Expecting someone to safegaurd you is beyond the scope of medical care. I think tests should be a tool and nothing more.

The implications of this decision could expand to cancer screenings and everything else. If they don't catch it, they are liable. My dad just died. They did a screen on him 6 months before and did not catch the cancer. I could use this decision as a precedent for my case if I was to litigate for millions. I don't feel entitled to do that though. This is what this is about is entitlement.

I have been personally misdiagnosed as well for minor things. That's life.

The last thing that bothers me is The door is open now. Who is going to pay for this new flood of lawsuits? I tell you who, you and me. It will make insurance more expensive. Those that don't pay for insurance will have to be subsidized with tax dollars even more than what it is now.

Oh and one more thing, It is Obama's fault for his crappy health plan. I don't know how he is tied in but I have to blame him

[malq]

Those screenings aren't free through health coverage I don't think, so if they paid for the test, they should have gotten the right results and the hospital is to blame for not taking the right fluids.

I remember those screenings and It seemed to me they just did them. We didn't ask for them and our insurance covered it. I do remember that. I did all the billing nightmares afterwards

[LadyCygnet]

I feel bad for Kalanit once she's old enough to read about this case. They may tell her that they love her, but the knowledge that they would have aborted her had they known she was going to be born with Down Syndrome is going to hurt like hell and make her question the veracity of that love.

[Apostle of Chaos]

This is an interesting case,

The implications of this decision could expand to cancer screenings and everything else. If they don't catch it, they are liable. My dad just died. They did a screen on him 6 months before and did not catch the cancer. I could use this decision as a precedent for my case if I was to litigate for millions. I don't feel entitled to do that though. This is what this is about is entitlement.

I have been personally misdiagnosed as well for minor things. That's life.

While I totally agree with you, what if (using cancer for example) what if it was something that suddenly sprang up after the scan? Or something that at the time of the screening it couldn't be tested for?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing some special waivers being drawn up to *try* and prevent stuff like this from happening.

*note, I have no medical experince what-so-ever, and thus have no idea when they would do screenings for various diseases, I assume it'd be if you have a family history or something, or if you can do pre-screenings or what not.*

[cubby]

I don't really think that she will be all that aware of whether she's "loved" or not. She more than likely exists in the moment, I have a relative who is significantly developementally delayed (not Downs), she doesn't speak but a few words, she's about 35 now, her mother died about 2 years ago, fast acting cancer, she was sent to live went a caregiver who volunteered to take her in, and as far as anyone can tell she's as happy there as she ever was. Tho with the amount of disability that she has, who can know for sure.

[Shadow]

My ex sister-in-law when she was born, her parents were told she'd not live to see the age of 5. She was both blind and deaf. She is somewhere in her early 30s now, if memory serves. She is quite developmentally disabled. Will always be no more mature than a 12yr old. She can see and hear and speak. Her parents love her very much and it shows in how they interact with her.

My point? It's simple. The hospital fucked up. Get over it. Sure, it's going to cost a lot more for this child's health care and needs, but that is the risk you take when you have a child. There's *always* the chance that child will have something wrong with it. Perhaps it's born seemingly healthy, but will develop diabetes by the age of 5. I think I agree with @malq about the entitlement part. I 'liked' @Mega Ultra's comment for the part about the hospital being to blame, sure. Refund the cost of the test. They fucked up. It doesn't mean the REST OF US should bear the brunt of this couple's decision to have a child. Nobody seems to be responsible for THEIR part in whatever happens anymore.

~shadow

[TKaz]

My point? It's simple. The hospital fucked up. Get over it. Sure, it's going to cost a lot more for this child's health care and needs, but that is the risk you take when you have a child.

What ceisdsgil said!!!

Years ago we didn't have tests or ultrasound - you just got what you got & you were happy with it.

HOWEVER, as a mother of two who's had a tubal so I would NOT have more kids....I wonder how I'd feel if I got pregnant. I'd love the baby, nurture it...but that's a third college tuition I hadn't been counting on. Know what I mean?

[Shadow]

What ceisdsgil said!!!

Years ago we didn't have tests or ultrasound - you just got what you got & you were happy with it.

HOWEVER, as a mother of two who's had a tubal so I would NOT have more kids....I wonder how I'd feel if I got pregnant. I'd love the baby, nurture it...but that's a third college tuition I hadn't been counting on. Know what I mean?

I see where you're comin' from. Sure it would be difficult financially, but you would bear the responsibility instead of suing the doctor/hospital that performed the tubal. We live in an overly litigious world now. People are always tryin' to get paid without actually 'working' a job, for the money. They're quick to sue over stupid things and lawyers are the worst. They push people to sue for lame reasons.

I come from a time too, when we took care of our responsibilities the right way, instead of expecting everyone else to give us a free handout.


~shadow

[Heather4877]

I feel bad for Kalanit once she's old enough to read about this case. They may tell her that they love her, but the knowledge that they would have aborted her had they known she was going to be born with Down Syndrome is going to hurt like hell and make her question the veracity of that love.

"She is able to speak in two-word sentences which only her parents and a few others understand, according to the Oregonian." I doubt that as an adult she will be in a position to research her birth and the situation surrouding it. If she IS lucky enough to be able to do that, I think you're right, mom and dad will have some fancy foot work to do.

Having said that, I don't, in any way, judge their remarks of having intended to abort the pregnancy if the test came back positive for Downs. Any parent that has gone through that test knows that you don't come to that decision lightly. A lot of thought is put into it. I think they probably love their little girl dearly and I wish them only the best.

[evervigilant]

If I wasn't so lazy I could sue the local hospital and school for thousands, negligent bastards. But I just can't be arsed. They apparently need the money even more than I do anyway.

[TheMeaningOfItAll]

Our middle daughter was born with some health problems that went undiagnosed. We brought her home and she started having seizures the same day. We took her to the hospital and she was never once checked by a doctor, and in spite of abnormal blood readings, they sent us home saying she had gas. The seizures got worse and we took her to a different hospital where she spent a week in ICU. Everyone told us that we should sue the original hospital for dropping the ball. We still don't know the long term damage that the lack of oxygen to her brain has caused. She has some minor delays and we just consider ourselves lucky she's alive and with us. Never once did we consider suing. We did contact the Chief of Medicine and told him what happened with the hope that no one else has to endure what we went through. I guess my point is that doctors and hospitals make mistakes. Misdiagnosing Downs isn't worth a lawsuit. You roll the dice every time you have a kid. The kid could be a sociopath, a genius, get cancer, have epilipsey, etc. these things are hard to diagnose in utero. As far as medical technology has come, there are still mistakes. When I was pregnant with all three kids, I'd get pissed when people would say,"Well, as long as the baby is healthy..." because sometimes babies aren't healthy and that doesn't mean the situation is a bad one or that the child is unlovable.

[sheevaa]

Sure, it's going to cost a lot more for this child's health care and needs, but that is the risk you take when you have a child. There's *always* the chance that child will have something wrong with it.

Refund the cost of the test. They fucked up. It doesn't mean the REST OF US should bear the brunt of this couple's decision to have a child. Nobody seems to be responsible for THEIR part in whatever happens anymore.

The parents DID do their part by ensuring all the tests were done. According to the article, there were signs of Downs in ultrasounds that also were not caught.
This isn't the parents grabbing a greedy loophole. This is the parents doing everything they should have and the hospital screwing up something that should have been seen. This isn't an issue that would be resolved in a little while, chances are good their daughter will never be able to live on her own and will need special care for the rest of her life.
I agree with them filing and winning this lawsuit.

[Cape Town Girl]

I find it highly unlikely that they would have in fact aborted the baby as they state they are orthodox jews.

In my opinion they used that as an excuse for their lawsuit to make it seem more legit and it seems to have worked.

[tmdgirl]

Its unfortunate the hospital, doctor and lab made a mistake. I still don't think it should give this couple the right to sue, and the judgement should not have been given to them.

The test they are referring to does not give a 100% definite answer that a child is going to have a medical issue, it only shows a probability factor. So even if the test had been performed correctly, the results still could have shown there daughter had a CHANCE of having down's, but not a for sure YES she will have it or not.

I have 4 children (5 soon), I have had this test done with each pregnancy. Its part of normal prenatal screening. My results have always shown what my chances are of having a child with a medical issue. But like any test, it is not 100% accurate. It could say my chances of having a child with down's is quite high and my child might be fine. It might say there is almost no chance at all, and the child may have it.

I get that the parents are upset the testing was done wrong, but I think their lawsuit is more motivated by greed than an actual love for their child and her needs (or possible needs).

Like @TheMeaningOfItAll said, the child could be a sociopath, genius, get cancer, have epilepsy, etc. You get what you get, there are no guarantees (even with the best of tests). As a parent, I say take what you are given, thank God for the blessing and make the most/best of it, no matter what the circumstance.

[Obsolete]

I don't really think that she will be all that aware of whether she's "loved" or not. She more than likely exists in the moment, I have a relative who is significantly developementally delayed (not Downs), she doesn't speak but a few words, she's about 35 now, her mother died about 2 years ago, fast acting cancer, she was sent to live went a caregiver who volunteered to take her in, and as far as anyone can tell she's as happy there as she ever was. Tho with the amount of disability that she has, who can know for sure.

Having Downs doesn't mean you can't read and understand. Remember Corky from Life Goes On? He had a sucessful acting career and he had Downs. I've known people with Downs to get married, have children, and live on their own with minimal support. It all depends on the severity of her syndrom. The fact that she can communicate at age 4 is pretty encouraging.

[Aena]

Sorry but when a mistake that someone makes costs someone else their life or livelihood they should be able to sue. How is a doctor anyone different than someone that injures you in an accident? I don't think there is any difference, a life is still lost or someone is still damaged from the accident. Actually I think with a doctor it is worse because their job shouldn't have room for mistakes. When you go see a doctor or go to the hospital they literally can and do have your life in their hands.

On this site we go on and on about people who make mistakes, hitting someone with a car kind of mistake, not murder on purpose. We applaud when the family sues the person that caused the accident, yeah hit them where it counts, in their pocket! How is this any different? I remember some people even agreeing with the woman who sued the family of the guy who got hit by a train because his body parts hit her, that was a mistake on his part, trying to beat the train. Lots of people said they agreed with the woman suing, where is the difference? Doctors are trained to do this kind of stuff, they can't make mistakes with peoples lives.

[Mare]

As a matter of law, in order for the parents to be able to sue the hospital they HAVE to claim that if they had known the child would have Down's Syndrome - they would have aborted her. Without this claim, they do not have a lawsuit. As simple as that.

It could very well be that they would have indeed chosen to abort the fetus had they known this child would have Down's. Not many parents are equipped or willing to deal with a child who requires life-long care. I understand that you don't know what you will end up getting when you have a child, BUT there is a difference in knowing you will give birth to a child with a disability and being prepared for that and having a healthy child that ends up being disabled (due to an accident or a series of other events later on). These parents are suing for medical care - this medical care will be enormous and they may not qualify for state/federal services.

At the issue is whether the doctor and hospital were negligent. Were they? You get to decide. If your child were in a car accident (not their fault and avoidable) and suffered brain damage as a result, would you sue the driver who hit you for medical expenses?

[Obsolete]

Sorry but when a mistake that someone makes costs someone else their life or livelihood they should be able to sue. How is a doctor anyone different than someone that injures you in an accident? I don't think there is any difference, a life is still lost or someone is still damaged from the accident.

@Aena - The doctors didn't injure anyone. They aren't responsible for the child having Downs, they didn't cause this. They made a mistake on a test that prevented the parents from finding out their child had Downs therefore removing their right to abort the baby.

[princessgrandma]

OK, so maybe I'm missing a big fat point, but who's to say that, at some point, that little one might not become aware and understand that her parents wouldn't have wanted her if they'd known she wasn't perfect?

So they now have a pile of money. Maybe that's a consolation for the "imperfection" of their child.

It's just sad.

[Obsolete]

OK, so maybe I'm missing a big fat point, but who's to say that, at some point, that little one might not become aware and understand that her parents wouldn't have wanted her if they'd known she wasn't perfect?

So they now have a pile of money. Maybe that's a consolation for the "imperfection" of their child.

It's just sad.

The money is for her medical expenses, that's hardly a consolation. They love her and want to give her the best care possible, maybe they weren't able to do that without this money.

[golanvern]

I don't know what to think, but I'm not about to pass judgement on the parents.

They have shown that they specifically requested the testing, and did so to determine whether or not the child would be healthy. The defendants failed to perform the job (Ie: the tests) that they were paid to perform with a specific purpose. The purpose of those tests were also known to the defendants, but they fucked it up.

The parents have stated that their choice to carry or not would have been very different if the tests had been done properly. I don't think it was the "error of the birth" that has caused this, rather it was the "error by the testers" and the following non-diagnosis when all signs were present that caused this. I can not place blame onto the parents for this as their intent has been shown and was known prior to the girl's birth.

I never had any of this testing done when I was pregnant simply bacause the results would not have mattered to me and I'd have had the child regardless. Thus, I saved Canadian taxpayers the money it would have cost for testing that really made no impact upon my choice (this is all covered in this country).

Glad that they love their daughter, and there's nothing wrong with that either. Asking for those who failed to perform their jobs properly to bear responsibility for their shortfalls is quite all right too in my books.

[cubby]

@Obsolete, I remember Corky and he is a wonder and an exception, extrememly high functioning, and not the norm at all. I was answering whoever had said something about Kalanit growing up and realizing that her mother had wanted to abort her before birth, I guess I really didn't make the point that I wanted to make (as usual). I was really trying to say that if Kalanit is only functioning as the parents have said then she probably would never be able to understand the concept of being wanted, unwanted, loved or unloved. And I think that maybe the biggest blessing here. Never know the evil that the world is capable of creating.

I sincerely hope that Kalanit does grow up to be high functioning and able to live in a group home and take care of herself, but the odds are not with her. My neice, Carrie, willl never live on her own, she still will paint poopie murals if she is left by herself too long. But she is a lovely woman, kind and giving, but the reality is she will need care for the rest of her natural life and it's as long as anyone else who is 35 and fairly healthy.

I have no answer as to whether or not they should be suing, I can see where they might need the extra for Kalanit because as she grows and gets bigger the more money will be spent on caregivers and treatment.

[Obsolete]

@Obsolete, I remember Corky and he is a wonder and an exception, extrememly high functioning, and not the norm at all. I was answering whoever had said something about Kalanit growing up and realizing that her mother had wanted to abort her before birth, I guess I really didn't make the point that I wanted to make (as usual). I was really trying to say that if Kalanit is only functioning as the parents have said then she probably would never be able to understand the concept of being wanted, unwanted, loved or unloved. And I think that maybe the biggest blessing here. Never know the evil that the world is capable of creating.

I sincerely hope that Kalanit does grow up to be high functioning and able to live in a group home and take care of herself, but the odds are not with her. My neice, Carrie, willl never live on her own, she still will paint poopie murals if she is left by herself too long. But she is a lovely woman, kind and giving, but the reality is she will need care for the rest of her natural life and it's as long as anyone else who is 35 and fairly healthy.

I have no answer as to whether or not they should be suing, I can see where they might need the extra for Kalanit because as she grows and gets bigger the more money will be spent on caregivers and treatment.

I don't think he's the exception at all. I use to volunteer to work with people with Downs Symdrome when I was in jr high and high school and many of them functioned on their own and had the ability to understand, just look at all the people that compete in the Special Olympics. If she has the ability to communicate at all at her age, then it shows that she has a good chance of being high functioning as an adult.

I wish her the best.

[cubby]

@Obsolete, I wish her all the best, also. I hope that she is as high functioning as she possibly can be, that she can know and appreciate love. This is what children need the most, LOVE, all of them without exception.

[princessgrandma]

The money is for her medical expenses, that's hardly a consolation. They love her and want to give her the best care possible, maybe they weren't able to do that without this money.

I concede. You are right.

It's still sad. My perfectly normal sister had to go through her whole life knowing that if my mom didn't have to have 3 kids in order to have a tubal, she might not have even been born. My mom told me from as far as I can remember that if she had known about birth control, I might be a bit younger, or not born at all. No warm, fuzzies there. Her stupidity. Not mine.

[VAS1326]

Okay here is the the thing....most of us only have the triple screen test (now quad screen in some area's) which is a simple blood test. This woman had an invasive procedure where they took tissue (should have been from the baby) to determine if there was Downs. Most people don't have the invasive procedure (like amino) unless they have a reason too. I'm thinking her blood work came back at risk for downs. She has a botched amnio (I can't think of how else they would aquire a sample of the baby's tissue) which I'm not sure how they messed that one up but it appears to have been what happened. Then the ultrasound techs didn't see the signs of downs. Ultrasound technology is not 100% because the images are interpreted by people. I know several people who got big suprises when their little girls where actually little boys. I think about my son's ultrasounds and think how do you miss that? It happens so if the Down's isn't severe maybe the tech just didn't see what they normally look for.

I think it's kind of crappy to sue the hospital. That is your child. You chose to be a parent late in life and you knew the risk. I think diagnostic technology is great because it can often find defects ahead of time so doctor's can be prepared when the baby is born (sometimes those minutes count) However; to sue because you didn't get the perfect child seams kind of hokey to me. Maybe because of my beliefs. That baby was meant to be born and maybe there is a reason they didn't get to abort her.

[Obsolete]

Okay here is the the thing....most of us only have the triple screen test (now quad screen in some area's) which is a simple blood test. This woman had an invasive procedure where they took tissue (should have been from the baby) to determine if there was Downs. Most people don't have the invasive procedure (like amino) unless they have a reason too. I'm thinking her blood work came back at risk for downs. She has a botched amnio (I can't think of how else they would aquire a sample of the baby's tissue) which I'm not sure how they messed that one up but it appears to have been what happened. Then the ultrasound techs didn't see the signs of downs. Ultrasound technology is not 100% because the images are interpreted by people. I know several people who got big suprises when their little girls where actually little boys. I think about my son's ultrasounds and think how do you miss that? It happens so if the Down's isn't severe maybe the tech just didn't see what they normally look for

they botched it because they took the tissue from the womb and tested that rather than the baby himself.

Mr Miller claimed in the case that Dr Thomas Jenkins removed tissue in the womb from Mrs Levy, rather than from the baby, when he carried out the procedure at the clinic.

[Shadow]

Something that occurred to me.... Doctors don't know everything. 95% of the time they're giving you an 'educated' guess. My point is, they make mistakes ALL the time. Why should the rest of us pay for someone's choice to have or not have a baby. (medical insurance going up because of unnecessary medical mal-practice suits).
This baby could prove to be less 'expensive' than the doctors think. When people decide to have a baby, whether the baby has Down's Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy or is born perfectly healthy, it is STILL their choice. There are risks and the risks are known. I get that times are going to be hard for this family because this is a special needs child, but it was still their decision. As someone pointed out earlier.. these tests are not 100% and they aren't claimed to be 100% accurate. The parents still knew there was a gamble, no matter how small it was.

Something I don't understand is, if the baby was born with Down's Syndrome and they truly didn't want a Down's Syndrome baby, why didn't they give the baby up for adoption instead of choosing to keep her and bearing the proposed hardship of her care?

The doctors need to start having patients sign forms stating they understand that SOMETIMES the doctors are wrong.
That would put a stop to a lot of this litigiousness.


~shadow