A difference of 5 percentage points = $12 million

A major malpractice settlement in Canada. A physician underestimates the risk of twinning in Clomid and it costs $12 million:

“The physician was found negligent for understating the increased risk of twinning associated with taking Clomid to stimulate ovulation,” court papers show.
“There was no negligence in prescribing Clomid; the only fault was a failure to disclose the risks.”
“It could have been prevented because I never would have gone on it (Clomid) if I knew the risks,” said Bovingdon. The risk of her having twins was 10 per cent but the obstetrician said it was 3 to 5 per cent, said Bovingdon’s lawyer Cindy MacDonald.

Comments

Fastolfe
Isn’t the point of civil awards to compensate for harm? Why wouldn’t someone want twins? Probably because of the increased cost. Is the addition of an extra member to your household going to cost you $12M?
But really, the “harm” is a doubling of the chance, so you were *prepared* for twins at a 5% likelyhood. A cost/benefit analysis would suggest that’s “worth” 5% of the full cost of an extra child. So really, your harm is really worth the doubling of your risk, or 5% of the cost of an extra child, not 100%. This would suggest that the cost of raising a child is actually 20x$12M = $240M. Something isn’t right.
Okulus
The very idea that anything wrongful has been done or that any harm was done by having a twin birth is the problem. Generally live birth is considered a benefit, but maybe not in Canada, though.
And just where does the $12 M cost come into the picture? This settlement belongs on the ash heap. Why did a court approve this?
Anonymous
I don’t get it. There was no injury. Where is the malpractice?
Anonymous
“I don’t get it. There was no injury. Where is the malpractice?”
That is irrelevant in a court of law.
Anonymous
The “harm” of twins is not doubling the cost of your diapers, but increasing the medical danger to mother and twins. The suit is also absurd: perhaps if the plaintiff accepts the $12M, she will return the two children.
Anonymous
“I don’t get it. There was no injury. Where is the malpractice?”
That is irrelevant in a court of law.
But this was in fair and just Canada! Not the wild west of crying mentally retarded “I can’t get out of Jury Duty” juries US!
Anonymous
The “harm” of twins is not doubling the cost of your diapers, but increasing the medical danger to mother and twins. The suit is also absurd: perhaps if the plaintiff accepts the $12M, she will return the two children.
Anonymous
I like the above commenters idea: Give the sodomites’ flak a choice: You can keep the $12 million, but you have to give up the unwanted twin to one of the many families out there who would love to have an adopted baby. What would the greedy bitch choose?
Anonymous
I agree; to quote the Gang of Four, “Return the Gift”.
Anonymous
Jackpot justice
Anonymous
actually I was trained that the risk was 3-4% risk of twins and that’s what i report and apparently the american fertility association agrees with me.
http://www.theafa.org/faqs/afa_chlomiphenecitrate.html
i’m sure you can find authors who give higher risks and if it happens to you the percentage doesn’t matter.
Anonymous
The only way to guarantee having only one child is to adopt. If you have more than one and you only want one, you can similarly always give one up for adoption.
Anonymous
That should be one well balanced child: “Honey, we’re rich because I sued the doctor who’s responsible for you being born and won 12 million dollars”. “IIf I knew you’d be twins, I would have aborted you”
Gasman
The lesson to be learned here is that one should always overstate the risks involved. If the risk of twinning had been stated to the plaintiff as 20% and it turns out to have been only 10% then the doc is covered. Really rare stuff I pad by 10 or 100 fold, while for common things where I have to keep the risk less than 100%, I’ll just pad by doubling the best published risks of which I’m aware; that way if there is some scandinavian article that quotes higher rates out there I’m covered.
Anonymous
i know who this family is…and i can honestly say….knowing 2 sides of this story would be beneficial to you…because until you’ve walked in these poor parents footsteps…you have no idea what they have gone through….money is nothing ….no amount of money is worth the agony and heart break they face every day….
Anonymous
The award was for the costs of future care….the Clomid caused twinning, which caused premature birth- both children have profound health problems.

A difference of 5 percentage points = $12 million

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels