Has school destroyed your creativity and self-confidence? I'm working on a book called Recovering From School, to help you heal the damage caused. Join the Patreon or Newsletter to be notified about updates. Paid Patreon members will get early draft previews, as well as a free digital copy when it's done.
School Survival > News >
Girl sues sperm bank for father's 'defective' sperm
NEW YORK: Whom to blame if the sperm from a sperm bank leads to complications in children?
An American teenager, who was born with a genetic disorder called X syndrome causing mental impairment, has filed a suit against the sperm bank that her mother used to conceive her.
Thirteen-year-old Brittany Donovan from Pennsylvania is suing the sperm bank, Idant Laboratories in New York, after a judge gave her the go ahead to pursue the case under product liability laws applicable to manufacturing defects.
Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury, according to NewScientist.
"It doesn't matter how much care was taken,'' says lawyer Danile Thistle who is representing the teenager.
Genetics tests on the girl confirmed that she inherited the genetic defects from her biological father.
But in Pennsylvania where she was conceived, she could not pursue the case since a 'blood shield law' gives impunity to sellers of human bodily material from product liability suits. As New York does not grant such impunity to sperm sellers, federal judge Thomas O'Neill has allowed Donovan to pursue the lawsuit in New York, according to the magazine.
Since this is the first case of its kind in US medical history, sperm banks fear that "this could open the floodgates'' for other sperm recipients to sue them.
Idant Laboratories claim themselves to be the oldest and largest semen banks in the US, pioneering semen banking and developing the technology to ship frozen semen all over the world.
The group also claims to maintain one of the largest human semen banks in the US.
Posted by: Puchiko
Source Article
Where to next? Pick one!
- Check out the Alternatives to School section
- Join our Patreon
- Sign up for our newsletter
Posted in: News on April 15, 2009 @ 12:00 AM
If you like what we're doing here, you can become a Patron and sign up for our newsletter!
Do you think she realized that without the 'defective' sperm she wouldn't be alive right now?
That's tough though. Just because the child wouldn't have been her doesn't really change the equation. It really comes down to whether or not the genetic material is considered "Viable" and if so, was the mother warned of the possibility of the child inheriting the impairment. And beyond that, I have 2 questions. The first, couldn't the sperm-bank have chosen a sample that didn't contain that particular allele, even if it was from the same "father"? And second, what's up with giving complete legal protection to people who sell human bodily material? That seems fishy to me. If anything, knowing that that material might go into a persons body should make the sellers more liable, if the fault can be traced back to them. If it's some brand new never-before-seen disorder, then I wouldn't blame the company. But if it's well known, even if it's rare, I would consider the company at fault.
teenagewasteland, what would be the point of being alive if you were born with some awful genetic disorder??
very true. If there was some way to test if it was defective they should have. If they could but they didn't, it's a defective product and they should file a lawsuit against them. It does suck though because you now have a disease and it's the bank's fault due to the product being defective
You're right Zstriker, it was still defective, thus causing harm. Very shaky ground though, I shoulda been more clear on that.
In any case, interesting article. Nice find.
The girl isn't suing the sperm bank for "not checking the sperm" though. Take a close look:
"Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury, according to NewScientist.
"It doesn't matter how much care was taken,'' says lawyer Danile Thistle who is representing the teenager."
If the genetic defect inheritance could have been avoided by, say, testing the dad or his sperm, sure. Sure their asses off! If that's not the case, and the article, though not being explicit, kinda indicates it isn't, I don't really see why the sperm bank should pay a penny. The lawyer says: It doesn't matter how much care was taken. I think that if the sperm bank did everything it could to prevent this, they have done nothing wrong and shouldn't pay a penny.
However, the courts exist to interpret laws, not decide based on what they, or I, think is right. Let's see what US law has to say about this, and then be pissed at the law, not the judge. There was pretty nasty thing over here when one of our ministers ignored that the court's job is to INTERPRET not DICTATE.