The award seems VERY high. It seems the reward should cover any and all medical and social care required by the child, as well as a sum for emotional
suffering. The lab didn't CAUSE the defects, it failed to detect them, they don't share 100% of the blame, they shouldn't share 100% of the
responsibility of bringing comfort to the family. Medical care and the like is extremely expensive for people with severe defects, but not 50 million
expensive. There are tons of people living lives with these problems and few, if any, of them are doing it with 50 million dollars.
One thing that needs to be considered when trying to take the moral high-ground, and bashing people for using science to do things like this:
Some say it's wrong to try to ensure that the child you bear is healthy and free of issues that will cause severe suffering in the child/person. They
say it's not natural. Birth is always a roll of the dice, and we shouldn't be trying to "meddle" with such matters.
From the people I've seen with that opinion, they are highly hypocritical, and I'll explain why.
The type of defects that would cause a person to abort a child are usually the ones which would, in their preferred "natural" world would NOT survive.
It would die shortly after child birth. If we are going to extend life and give complex medical assistance to children born with defects, that is NOT
natural anymore than screening the babies beforehand is.
The human race is physically weak today because we allow our weak to survive and pass on their weakness. Sounds harsh, I know. Physical weakness is
not the same as mental weakness, and as humans have favored intelligence over strength, being physically weaker isn't such the issue it would be for
most other species.
There was a time where you couldn't prevent afflicted children from being born (as you wouldn't know they were until after birth) so we dealt with
that by taking care of our brothers and sisters with physical issues.
We are no longer in that time. We can easily prevent babies being born which will go on to live a life of severe suffering, anguish, and untimely
death due to genetic defects and the like.
I care for life, I care for our species, which is why I see no problem stopping suffering before it begins. I feel you are still killing a living
being, one way or another, but I don't feel you are violating anyone's will. A featus doesn't have motives, desires, etc for you to violate. You are
not creating any suffering, in fact you are removing it. That is what someone who cares for their fellow humans would do, try to avoid suffering among
the population as much as possible.
That isn't a condemnation about people who are against aborting defective babies, simply my opinion.
It's sad, nobody can deny that, but because something is sad doesn't make it wrong. Dying is sad, it's something every single one of us will do, that
doesn't mean it's wrong.
Bottom line for me- LONG ago we as a species abandoned any notion of "nature" deciding who lives and who dies. It seems incredibly hypocritical to be
so selective about when you feel nature has the right to control life and death anymore than humanity does.
edit on 24-12-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)