Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Indeed. If their families are ok with them as a couple, then adopting a baby is not a stretch,er at all.

 Frazzled wrote:
"Raising a child is a lifetime commitment, and now they have a lifetime commitment to raising the wrong child."

How is that the "wrong" child?

It wasn't the donor they carefully selected and paid for?

I mean, I feel like this is really raising the bar in feigned obtuseness, yes?

Er no. Its still not the "wrong child." This views in the Frankesnsteinian farce are getting crazed.

Its a child, (a potentially tasty stop it just stop it babies are not for eating!). It may not have had the right dad, but so the feth what?

They're basically arguing that because where they live at is racist they should get money. No. Move.

Frankly the more I think about it, the more the child should be removed and given to parents who...you know...give a gak. These don't.

Man, this is the most convoluted, twisted path to "blame the victim" I've ever seen, but... here we are. Get the wrong baby, you're probably an unfit parent if you complain about it.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, this is the most convoluted, twisted path to "blame the victim" I've ever seen, but... here we are. Get the wrong baby, you're probably an unfit parent if you complain about it.

Its not the wrong baby. Thats the issue. Its just a baby with a different skin color and higher chance of hypertension.
Did the husband's genetic material get switched? nope.
Did the mother's? Nope.

I can understand your argument (sort of), but you can't argue wrongful birth here. The child was born. The child was born healthy.
Maybe the parents themselves are racists.

 Frazzled wrote:
Did the husband's genetic material get switched? nope.

They used the wrong male donor. How is that a "nope"?

Was the donor the husband or the person who was going to be recognized as the father on the birth certificate/under law? Was the donor a family member?

If not then "nope" the donor is merely feedstock to this little machine they bought.

Yeah, this was fruitless, I see that in retrospect. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and all that.

Never argue with a lawyer about money and damages. We'll argue just to argue and then drop our finishing move with a little Latin. Res ipso loquitor baby!

Poe's Law is nothing compared to Frazzled's Law!

I wonder if "don't wake a dachshund lest you end up in bloody shreds" sounds scarier in Latin

 Frazzled wrote:
Er no. Its still not the "wrong child." This views in the Frankesnsteinian farce are getting crazed.

So you think that the proper way to handle sperm banks would be like a roulette table, where a woman comes in, gets a random sample injected and walks out again. Randomness, because.

Seriously, though, this is a clear-cut case. Company broke the contract, company has to pay. How much - good luck for the judge in question.

There will never be a clear cut case as long as lawyers get paid by the hour!

Poe's Law is nothing compared to Frazzled's Law!

Well, yea. And remember, he who breaks the Law must go to the House of Pain. (whats Poe’s Law – does it involve talking birds?)

I wonder if "don't wake a dachshund lest you end up in bloody shreds" sounds scarier in Latin

Google:
ergo non vigilaveris a dachshund ne finem facias, et sanguinem in ea voluptate velit

So you think that the proper way to handle gene banks would be like a roulette table, where a woman comes in, gets a random sample injected and walks out again.

Of course not. She has to spin the Wheel of Destiny.
My point is that there may be a minor contractual claim, but there’s no claim available from the father that his genetic material was not used. Therefore the only claims are the mother’s. I don’t see claims in equity here as the argument is asinine and is essentially “oh heaven’s to Betsy my baby’s a darkie.” Er this isn’t the 1950s any more.

There will never be a clear cut case as long as lawyers get paid by the hour!

Exactly.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Seriously, though, this is a clear-cut case. Company broke the contract, company has to pay. How much - good luck for the judge in question.

I'm kind of with Frazz on this one... The sperm bank gave them a refund of the money that was spent, but only after the couple informed the bank they wanted another child from "same" donor.

Ergo, full refund, and that is the extent of "damages" from the bank's point of view.

Yes, we know a child is more important a matter than a cheeseburger, but the analogy remains the same.... You "opened" the wrapper to find out you were given a fish sandwich, but you ordered a cheeseburger. The "best" the restaurant can do is give you your money back, and make another one correctly... Well, I doubt that even the most die hard baby makers really want to go through all THAT again just to play genetic roulette, and sperm banks aren't adoption agencies so they cant "take it back" either.


Also, per the OP, they were bitchin' about having to "learn" how to do black children's hair!? Boo freakin' hoo!!! A good friend of mine and his wife adopted a black child and they went and just did the research without bitching about it! They're fething parents' it's part and parcel for the job.

Er, no.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Seriously, though, this is a clear-cut case. Company broke the contract, company has to pay. How much - good luck for the judge in question.

I'm kind of with Frazz on this one... The sperm bank gave them a refund of the money that was spent, but only after the couple informed the bank they wanted another child from "same" donor.

Ergo, full refund, and that is the extent of "damages" from the bank's point of view.

Yes, we know a child is more important a matter than a cheeseburger, but the analogy remains the same.... You "opened" the wrapper to find out you were given a fish sandwich, but you ordered a cheeseburger. The "best" the restaurant can do is give you your money back, and make another one correctly... Well, I doubt that even the most die hard baby makers really want to go through all THAT again just to play genetic roulette, and sperm banks aren't adoption agencies so they cant "take it back" either.


Also, per the OP, they were bitchin' about having to "learn" how to do black children's hair!? Boo freakin' hoo!!! A good friend of mine and his wife adopted a black child and they went and just did the research without bitching about it! They're fething parents' it's part and parcel for the job.

Exactly.

So if a hospital is negligent during a birth and causes permanent brain damage to a child, they shouldn't have to pay damages because another couple might willingly adopt a handicapped child anyway?

 stanman wrote:
Could you imagine the horror if somebody were to go to a sperm bank and had a ginger kid on accident?

 stanman wrote:
go to a sperm bank and had a ginger kid on accident?

 stanman wrote:
had a ginger kid on accident?

 stanman wrote:
on accident?

 stanman wrote:
on

BY!

So to be clear: If a couple is having problems conceiving, and they get in-vitro fertilization, and then later the lab admits that they used another man's semen; some of you would not see this as a problem, as long as they offered to refund part of your $400 copay? A baby was requested, a baby was produced, right?

 d-usa wrote:
So if a hospital is negligent during a birth and causes permanent brain damage to a child, they shouldn't have to pay damages because another couple might willingly adopt a handicapped child anyway?

No thats a claim for negligent birth. They have no grounds for that here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So to be clear: If a couple is having problems conceiving, and they get in-vitro fertilization, and then later the lab admits that they used another man's semen; some of you would not see this as a problem, as long as they offered to refund part of your $400 copay? A baby was requested, a baby was produced, right?

Nope in that case one of the parents wouldn't be a parent. That is not this case. They bought a shake and bake baby with the genetic material of one parent only. That was done accurately.

Following your logic if the baby they get turns out to have a genetic defect is the bank liable? After all thats pretty much what their arguing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So if a hospital is negligent during a birth and causes permanent brain damage to a child, they shouldn't have to pay damages because another couple might willingly adopt a handicapped child anyway?

No thats a claim for negligent birth. They have no grounds for that here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So to be clear: If a couple is having problems conceiving, and they get in-vitro fertilization, and then later the lab admits that they used another man's semen; some of you would not see this as a problem, as long as they offered to refund part of your $400 copay? A baby was requested, a baby was produced, right?

Nope in that case one of the parents wouldn't be a parent. That is not this case.

I would call this one negligent though frazz...


think of it this way,

this woman gave consent for donor 308 to impregnate her,

instead she was impregnated by donor 303, without her consent.

How is her being impregnated, without consent, not a sue-able thing?


black families would have issues with a white baby they were not expecting, and wouldnt be given any greif over sueing for getting the wrong donor and the consequencesfor the rest of their lives because of that, so I dont see why the reverse is somehow not allowed.

I remember reading about a case a few years back where a doctor at a fertility clinic had been intentionally inseminating patients with his own sperm, instead of doing it with the donor's sperm that the patients thought they had selected. The Doctor had a "so what attitude?" as they wanted kids and he gave them kids, ignoring the fact that he had completely misled and lied about who the biological father (donor) actually was.

As a result of this bait and switch tactic he'd fathered literally hundreds of kids with unsuspecting patients. He was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and got significant jail time as well as losing his medical license and having his business closed for malpractice.

In the current case it was accidental but I think there is very strong grounds for a medical malpractice suit.

 Medium of Death wrote:
ON

I had to google just what exactly you were going on about. (pun intended) Seems it's one of those oddities typically used by Americans under 35. All that really matters is that we both agree that having ginger kids would be horrible

"On" vs "by" drives me nuts as well. I'm a strict "by" man... I never heard "on" until I got to the midwest.

 Ouze wrote:
"On" vs "by" drives me nuts as well. I'm a strict "by" man... I never heard "on" until I got to the midwest.

It's just a minor dialectal difference. It's no worse than someone saying "at the weekend" instead of "on the weekend" or "during the weekend," or that someone is "in hospital" instead of "in the hospital."

 Ouze wrote:
So to be clear: If a couple is having problems conceiving, and they get in-vitro fertilization, and then later the lab admits that they used another man's semen; some of you would not see this as a problem, as long as they offered to refund part of your $400 copay? A baby was requested, a baby was produced, right?

Even with very good insurance, IVF is more like $25,000.

Sure, but it was the principle I was arguing, that lifelong medical errors can be obviated by a partial refund - lets pretend my hypothetical couple has amazing insurance.

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, but it was the principle I was arguing, that lifelong medical errors can be obviated by a partial refund - lets pretend my hypothetical couple has amazing insurance.

As it's been argued, I don't think so, because the both spouse's genetic material is involved. Whereas the people in the OP are using a "blind survey" sort of thing for a donor... IF the forms are at all filled in by hand, it's VERY easy to see how the woman who filled it out could have been mistaken for writing 330, instead of 380, or vice versa.

If this does go to court, I'm sure that documentation will be presented as evidence to show that there was an honest to goodness mistake, and that the sperm bank did as much as it could to rectify the situation. This is nowhere near the level of that doctor from the invitro clinic who was using his own sperm instead of the male spouse of the couple's. This is completely different from a left lung transplant when the patient needed a new right lung,

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Yes, we know a child is more important a matter than a cheeseburger, but the analogy remains the same.... You "opened" the wrapper to find out you were given a fish sandwich, but you ordered a cheeseburger. The "best" the restaurant can do is give you your money back, and make another one correctly... Well, I doubt that even the most die hard baby makers really want to go through all THAT again just to play genetic roulette, and sperm banks aren't adoption agencies so they cant "take it back" either.

I didn't realize you had to sign a contract with every cheeseburger purchase.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Yes, we know a child is more important a matter than a cheeseburger, but the analogy remains the same.... You "opened" the wrapper to find out you were given a fish sandwich, but you ordered a cheeseburger. The "best" the restaurant can do is give you your money back, and make another one correctly... Well, I doubt that even the most die hard baby makers really want to go through all THAT again just to play genetic roulette, and sperm banks aren't adoption agencies so they cant "take it back" either.

I didn't realize you had to sign a contract with every cheeseburger purchase.

Sign? Well if you paid by credit card. But you are entering into a contract when you're buying a cheeseburger. And its delicious!