By discussing possible fake birth cases, one must begin to recognize the enormous emotional upheaval in support of an argument usually attributed to the despair of the parents of serious disability who have decided to do their best to their family.
Only people who were on their ropes would be willing to admit – if they considered the loved and seriously injured child in their arms – that if they knew about disability prenatally, they would have stopped pregnancy.
Because this argument is the basis of falsified childbirth requirement and I really believe that every couple who chooses routine childbirth must remember before they go: if fetal abnormality occurs, what do you decide?
One of the problems is, of course, to bring such a case when it has in no way forgotten those who knowingly choose and receive a disabled child where abnormal events are reported prenatally
However, the development and choice of medical technology in the field of medical technology is that it creates practical and ethical choices that can be extremely difficult and an ever-growing love grows for a living child.
just decided at a recent event, I have represented a married couple with three children. A healthy six year old daughter and one year old boy and the middle child I call O. O is four years old with Down syndrome. He is at the bottom of the cognitive development spectrum, he has history of antidepressants, and has now been diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum disorder.
Children with childhood convulsions are likely to continue with serious developmental and autistic features and it is likely that O will remain in this group. His daily life is estimated to be the same as one year old. He is probably never a continent and needs a 24-hour care throughout his life and is unlikely to ever walk a few steps. His life expectancy is estimated at 60.
Recurrence of epilepsy ability is possible, which requires two caregivers to be treated. O may be very difficult to get sleep, he usually wakes up at least twice a night for at least 40 minutes each time and is very annoying and noisy. She has significant behavioral disorders, screams regularly, bites other people and pulls her hair. He chews cables and wood and scratches his skin, pulls his hair and pushes his fingers in his eyes. He blows his head on the wall or on the floor. By legal means O has no earning potential and capacity. He has no danger.
After his 12-week Nuchal review in April 2014, O's mother was reported to be "low-risk" pregnancy. In the next 20 weeks of Fetal Anomaly Scan, midwife found Down for two soft markers, but after consultation, parents were told that there was no concern.
The consultant later stated that if the nuchal fold was correctly measured, a high risk outcome would have come up and diagnostic testing will be provided.
Responsibility was approved at West Sussex Hospital for failing to diagnose O-injury from NHS Foundation Trust. It was accepted that, due to this omission, there was a birth-like diagnosis that would have resulted in the end of the pregnancy in about 13 weeks and O would not have been born. The case also includes the fact that the youngest child was born so that the daughter would have siblings without incapacity for work and that, despite negligence, the parents would have had two children instead of three. O, of course, is a beloved and beloved member of the family.
After O's birth, both of his parents suffered from her significant psychological reaction to her mother, including adjustment disorder and postpartum depression. They still have counseling together and alone. Basically, their other children suffer virtually and emotionally because their parents need to take care of O. O's mother has never been able to get back to work.
Law and Incorrect Birth
An abnormal birth criterion, such as O's activity, is based on the cost of educating a child with a disability that exceeds the normal cost of raising a healthy child. The law, however, is tense when the Trilogy of the Judiciary (McFarlane, Parkinson and Rees) is in conflict with each other effectively whether a child who is injured or not can be anything but a blessing.
Our primary case was that O's parents' claim is not limited to O's disability-related extra costs, but also to the basic costs of an unborn child. It was based on the neglect of disability. The Rees case acknowledged the basis for separating the "recovery of failure sterilization" in Parkinson's case, and in which parents explicitly requested medical input to avoid the birth of a child, was recognized
The respondent rejected all education requirements, but if Parkinson was to apply only the additional costs of disability, it would be charged, and only the majority of O when state subsidies meant he was no longer dependent on his parents.
After assessing the expertise, current and future needs were listed on the cost of 24 hours of treatment, including treatments, treatments, equipment and cost of living nurses, family adaptation costs to meet O's special needs, parental benefits, specialization training and parental pain and suffering. O's treatment continues after the death of the parents.
Initially refusing to accept calculations as a result of the current legal situation meant that the case was initiated during the trial in December 2018. However, in October 2018, the RTM parties were able to agree on the sum of almost 13 million pounds.
Some of their burden relief is impossible for this family, and with the least knowledge of nurses give them all the fatigue and perhaps more importantly know that O is being treated even though he lives outside his parents.
A complex, emotionally depleted and difficult case, but having to continue the future of a little boy with enormous lifetime needs.
Thanks to his assistant Gabriella Gooday and PA Jane Hadfield for their unsupported support for me and my family.