Edited by Gummo Trotsky to remind commenters that:

â??Imputing ideas or motives to others or stereotyping them because of perceived group membership or ideological affiliation.â?? is unacceptable in comments.

And youâ??re back in moderation Steve.

meaning what exactly? This “moderation” is what?

That you have your hands over your ears shouting “I can’t hear you”?

The naive & the fringe unhinged who inhabit this site get stuck into me aplenty because of â??Imputing ideas or motives to others or stereotyping them because of perceived group membership or ideological affiliation.â??

Nor does this worry me, as such attacks from inferiors are something I can take.

Hehe, Don’t remember what I typed, but to get a petulant reaction I must have stepped on a very sensitive dishonesty in the LP hivemind!

Which child wants to learn they were so unwanted that their parents sued for the distress of having them? And which parents are helped by brooding over, listing and keeping alive such resentments until a judge rules on what compensation, if any, they deserve?

Stop the presses! Bolta declares that litigation is a danger to mental health.

Does Bolta get paid to write this nonsense?

Their, not they’re. I hate that!

Other than the hysteria which is served up everytime GAY and PARENTING are used in the same thought wave, I think the other issue here is the whole death/birth dichotomy.

If they were suing over wrongful death, everyone would be cheering them on.

But they’re not – they’re case surrounds the deeply-entrenched-in-our-psyches, “sanctity of life” and everyone knows we mustn’t fiddle with that.

“Imputing ideas or motives to others or stereotyping them because of perceived group membership or ideological affiliation.” is unacceptable in comments.

And you’re back in moderation Steve.

Perhaps. I’m not convinced that this case is of such magnitude, financially-speaking, to have any significant impact on premiums. Delivering babies rather than making them seems to be the area which has attracted much litigation and therefore higher premiums in the past decade.

In any case the risk isn’t 0.01%. That is the risk that a single-implant transfer results in a multiple birth (e.g., when the embryo splits). This is a case where a single-implant transfer was (apparently) requested and two implants were (allegedly) negligently transferred. That is a different risk altogether.

And given that this looks like the first case of that kind in Australia, after 20+ years of IVF, the risk would appear to be even tinier than 0.01%.

This couple get an extra (’cherished’) child for free.

Well, I believe the reason for their case is precisely that the child didn’t come ‘for free’, but with significant (to them) emotional, physical and financial costs, plus the psychological ‘cost’, if that’s the term to use, of having their express wishes ignored by their doctor.

[By the way, I have no interest in supporting their case per se but I do have an interest in how the issues are treated in the media and more generally.]

In any case the risk isn’t 0.01%. That is the risk that a single-implant transfer results in a multiple birth (e.g., when the embryo splits). This is a case where a single-implant transfer was (apparently) requested and two implants were (allegedly) negligently transferred. That is a different risk altogether.

What interests me about this case is what a lottery it is. This couple get an extra (‘cherished’) child for free. Someone in Qld, NSW or SA could have a tubal ligation botched and recover a derisory amount in personal injuries and nothing for the costs of raising the child. Someone has sex with someone else who fraudulently tells them they have been sterilised – the custodial parent collects child support, but why should the defrauded partner not be able to claim damages or refuse child support on the basis of wrongful birth?

It comes from the insurance premiums the doctors and clinics have been paying all along.
1. there isn’t a 1% risk that every single-embryo transfer would result in a multiple birth, I think it was put at 0.01%.
2. You can’t do that maths and simply add $4000 to every IVF! And even if you did, it would be $40, not $4000. You’re getting ridiculously carried away.

I’m no expert on medical insurance, but it seems to me that $400,000 is not a huge amount that is going to break the insurer’s bank …

It’s not about breaking an insurer’s bank, it’s about pricing and keeping services such as IVF accessible. For example, if there is a 1% risk that an individual IVF program could result in an unwanted multiple birth costing $400,000 a throw, that adds $4000 to the cost of each program. That money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the insurance premiums IVF practitioners have to pay, which in turn comes from consumers (either when they pay their medical bills, their private health insurance or their tax). Isurance is not just some bottomless pot of money to provide a solution to the vicissitudes of life, it’s a business. When insurers get their risk assessments wrong they go broke.