Sperm bank sued after woman impregnated from black donor

[zibazinski]

They would have been able to adopt a biracial child. If you're going to go through the experience, and some people actually enjoy the experience, of carrying a child and going through child birth, it needs to be at least what you expect. They aren't suing because the baby was born with a defect or has special needs. They're suing because the place was careless with a child's life and future as well as her family's. it's just as okay for Carl to say he wants a black baby as it is for that couple to say they wanted a white baby. Even adoptions used to try to place a child that looked like the rest of the family. I have adopted cousins who look more like family than I do. They like to tease me that I'M adopted!

[Tiny]

I kind of skimmed the responses... so if someone may have already pointed this out.

I think the couple should sue. Who knows how many other people got the 'wrong sperm'. I'd be really pissed if I chose a donor and then later discovered that I recieved a different donors sperm. I wouldn't just shrug my shoulders and go "oh, that's ok! mistakes happen. It's ok, that the donor I did get was one of the donor profiles I nixed on the first pass thru. It's so ok!".

If there are no checks and balances what's to keep that particular clinic from having a catalog of hundreds of donors to choose from - but maybe really only having 10 donors or even ONE donor? That sounds like a great way to keep costs down (or keep relatives on the 'payroll').

Wasn't there a clinic where ONLY the main doctor did the donations EVEN though he told the recipients it was from a donor they selected? He had like 50 kids that way (or something like that...)

The couple in the article didn't get what they thought they were getting. The clinic screwed up (and who knows how many OTHER times they've screwed up).

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 2, 2014 23:23:34 GMT -5 @dayjawho said:

Oct 2, 2014 17:12:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

For reasons I can't imagine, they may have wanted people to think that their daughter was her husband's offspring.

ETA: Never mind. I just read the article. The only reasonable explanation left is that she doesn't want a black child. I don't know why it constitutes a tort, but you guys south of the border sue if your coffee is too hot.

I see nothing reasonable at all about that conclusion. Predictable, yes. Reasonable, no.

That's what this whole thread is about, though.

Damages are only awarded in a lawsuit if the plaintiff can demonstrate that a tort was committed and damages (financial, corporeal, emotional, etc.) occurred as a result. I can't sue McDonald's for giving me decaf coffee when I order regular coffee, for example, even if they make the same mistake 100 times in a row. There needs to be some kind of damage to justify the lawsuit. It isn't sufficient that the company made a mistake.

The mother's stated rationale is that her daughter will face a social stigma as a result of being a half-black girl being raised by a white lesbian couple. If you believe the explanation, this is a straightforward case. If you don't believe the explanation (and I certainly lean in this direction) the only remaining explanations are that the couple i) is greedy, and filed the lawsuit despite their belief that no tort was committed, or ii) did not want a child with a black father. Like it or not, "I don't want a black man's child" is a reasonable--if not open-minded, tolerant, or socially acceptable--preference. More specifically, we cannot conclude that such a preference is unreasonable.

The courts will have a whale of a time ruling on the case. If they believe the couple, they'll ostensibly be ruling on whether being black with white parents constitutes a tort. If they don't believe the couple, they'll be ruling on whether substituting a black man's sperm for a white man's sperm in contravention of the recipient's explicit preference is a tort, even if it causes no harm save for violating this preference.

[kittensaver]

Oct 3, 2014 14:49:20 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 2, 2014 23:23:34 GMT -5 @dayjawho said:

I see nothing reasonable at all about that conclusion. Predictable, yes. Reasonable, no.

That's what this whole thread is about, though.

Damages are only awarded in a lawsuit if the plaintiff can demonstrate that a tort was committed and damages (financial, corporeal, emotional, etc.) occurred as a result. I can't sue McDonald's for giving me decaf coffee when I order regular coffee, for example, even if they make the same mistake 100 times in a row. There needs to be some kind of damage to justify the lawsuit. It isn't sufficient that the company made a mistake.

The mother's stated rationale is that her daughter will face a social stigma as a result of being a half-black girl being raised by a white lesbian couple. If you believe the explanation, this is a straightforward case. If you don't believe the explanation (and I certainly lean in this direction) the only remaining explanations are that the couple i) is greedy, and filed the lawsuit despite their belief that no tort was committed, or ii) did not want a child with a black father. Like it or not, "I don't want a black man's child" is a reasonable--if not open-minded, tolerant, or socially acceptable--preference. More specifically, we cannot conclude that such a preference is unreasonable.

The courts will have a whale of a time ruling on the case. If they believe the couple, they'll ostensibly be ruling on whether being black with white parents constitutes a tort. If they don't believe the couple, they'll be ruling on whether substituting a black man's sperm for a white man's sperm in contravention of the recipient's explicit preference is a tort, even if it causes no harm save for violating this preference.

I agree that the outcome will hinge on the stated reasons for the suit, BUT - at least in my world, this is a clear medical mistake, and medical mistakes are actionable (and covered under malpractice insurance). On those grounds, they have a case (sez me). If they go after the "social stigma" reasons, well - I agree that will be very interesting to watch. YMMV

[Virgil Showlion]

For someone who insists that others should have faith, and has indeed asked that others take things here on faith, you grant little of it to others.

Notwithstanding the fact that I've never insisted NMSNMers should have faith or asked them to take things on faith (with the exception of our appeal for Rosemarie, I suppose)...

My "lack of faith" here isn't so much that I'm convinced the couple didn't want a black daughter, it's that i) I consider the claim "being a black child raised by white parents is a tort" to be bunkum, and ii) even if the couple genuinely believes in their claim, they also certainly know that monetary compensation won't remedy the situation.

I agree that the outcome will hinge on the stated reasons for the suit, BUT - at least in my world, this is a clear medical mistake, and medical mistakes are actionable (and covered under malpractice insurance). On those grounds, they have a case (sez me). If they go after the "social stigma" reasons, well - I agree that will be very interesting to watch. YMMV

This is one of the main cultural differences between Americans and Canadians. Americans tend to view lawsuits as a means of remedying corporate incompetence, while Canadians do not. As a result, your culture is significantly more litigious than ours.

A lawsuit's sole purpose should be to make whole the offended party for any harm caused (or so we were taught in my engineering law classes). It is not an instrument to punish corporations or practitioners by awarding absurdly large settlements to small-time litigants. The US courts appear to have a very different view on the subject than the Canadian courts, just as Americans typically have a different view of lawsuits than Canadians. Hence the prevalence of the "sue them straight" mentality is one of the key differences between our cultures.

Suffice it to say I don't consider punishing the sperm bank for the repeated mix-ups to be sufficient cause to award damages to affected parties. There needs to be some harm committed, and the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that a monetary settlement will make them whole.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 4, 2014 1:26:30 GMT -5 @dayjawho said:

Ah, to have such a view from your own Mount Herob.

Decalogues are engraved in stone. Your ability to see into what is in other people's hearts and minds, despite their inferior American status is not.

I didn't say it made you inferior, I said it's a cultural difference. I prefer the Canadian view, but I can't prove that our viewpoint is an overall boon to our society. Our service industries tend to be less efficient and more error-prone than their US counterparts, for example. Social scientists attribute it to Canadians being less confrontational than Americans (which is a demonstrable cultural difference), but part of the difference might also be the "sue them straight" mentality we're discussing in this thread.

If you're disputing the prevalence of the "sue them straight" mentality, I invite you to reread this thread and count the number of posts that clearly endorse it. It's also a demonstrable fact that US businesses tend to be underregulated by first world standards, and storms of litigation might go a long way in filling in the gap.

[TheHaitian]

Oct 4, 2014 0:04:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There needs to be some harm committed, and the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that a monetary settlement will make them whole.

Harm committed: wrong sperm

Make them whole: they have to move from their white neighborhood to a more diverse neighborhood. Want the clinic to pay for that...