I understand an economist opining on economic loss for an adult, like someone's wife who is working and dies from negligence and has 20 years until retirement at 65. The assumption is the wife has a husband and children to support, and therefore the loss of income is a hardship for the family and to be made whole, that loss should be paid. But for a fetal/neonatal death there is no family to support, there are only hypothetical future relationships and obligations that will never come into being. Parents do not rely on a child for support, the child relies on the parents. So I don't understand how the economist input has any relevance. Paying for the emotional loss makes sense to me, but not future earnings of a deceased baby. Sorry to sound cold, just not understanding the perspective.
The fetus is not a legal person until birth, and has no inherent rights until born. This makes responsibilities clear. The biologic parents are, and have prescribed (existing before the action) legal rights, and by laws applied also obligation for care is the duty of the legal parents or gardian. WIth rights comes duties, and since a fetus cannot fullfil any of the required duties of a person, cannot be granted sanction.
I woud critique the decisions described; that media-star-presidents sending persons to war and injury have protection from personal responsibility with no personal burden of training, yet physicians with tremendous burden (including emotional trauna) without thought of remedy is indefensible.
Liability under the law can be legally defined, but in this case the child is treated only as a commodity, with economic potential for the impled previous "owner" who may not even have legal right to the child after birth.
I understand an economist opining on economic loss for an adult, like someone's wife who is working and dies from negligence and has 20 years until retirement at 65. The assumption is the wife has a husband and children to support, and therefore the loss of income is a hardship for the family and to be made whole, that loss should be paid. But for a fetal/neonatal death there is no family to support, there are only hypothetical future relationships and obligations that will never come into being. Parents do not rely on a child for support, the child relies on the parents. So I don't understand how the economist input has any relevance. Paying for the emotional loss makes sense to me, but not future earnings of a deceased baby. Sorry to sound cold, just not understanding the perspective.
The fetus is not a legal person until birth, and has no inherent rights until born. This makes responsibilities clear. The biologic parents are, and have prescribed (existing before the action) legal rights, and by laws applied also obligation for care is the duty of the legal parents or gardian. WIth rights comes duties, and since a fetus cannot fullfil any of the required duties of a person, cannot be granted sanction.
I woud critique the decisions described; that media-star-presidents sending persons to war and injury have protection from personal responsibility with no personal burden of training, yet physicians with tremendous burden (including emotional trauna) without thought of remedy is indefensible.
Liability under the law can be legally defined, but in this case the child is treated only as a commodity, with economic potential for the impled previous "owner" who may not even have legal right to the child after birth.
How pathetic and sophist a rationalization.
is there any update on this OB case #36 (trial was scheduled in March 2021)
Yes! They kept delaying the trial repeatedly, then finally there was a confidential settlement in early 2022. I'll post an update soon!