Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Parents Sue Over Baby's Disability
January 6, 2000
MIAMI, FLORIDA--In 1996, Alfredo and Leslie Zambrana became the parents of Ashly, who has Down Syndrome. They are now suing a clinic, a hospital and the university affiliated with the hospital, for not performing certain tests that may have determined that Ashly had Down Syndrome. The parents are seeking damages to help defray the costs of her care.
In this Miami Herald story, they explain that if they had known about her disability, they would have had Ashly aborted:
http://www.herald.com/content/mon/news/dade/digdocs/022513.htm (Link expired)
Back to Top of Page
Couple Sues Doctor For Son's Birth
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
November 6, 2000
PARIS, FRANCE--In what is being considered an historic move, a couple is suing a doctor because he did not let them know that their son might be born with disabilities 17 years ago.
The courts had already ordered medical authorities to pay Josette and Christian Perruche a cash award because they failed to realize that Josette had caught rubella, a virus similar to the measles, during her 1983 pregnancy. As a result of Josette's rubella infection, their son Nicolas was born blind, deaf and has developmental disabilities.
During a hearing on Friday, the couple demanded new compensation, not because of their son's disabilities, but because, they say, their son was born. Mr. and Mrs. Perruche claimed that they would have chosen to have an abortion if they had been told about the infection and its effect on Nicolas.
The BBC quoted a doctor's attorney and the public prosecutor as warning the court that a ruling for the parents would send the wrong message.
"It is an attack on human dignity to regard the simple fact of living as detrimental," said lawyer Didier le Prado, speaking on behalf of the doctor. "This is making a distinction between lives that merit living and those which don't... that's a slippery slope."
The parents' attorney argued that the case should be considered on its own merits, that it would not have wider implications.
The court is expected to deliver a verdict on November 17.
January 6, 2000
MIAMI, FLORIDA--In 1996, Alfredo and Leslie Zambrana became the parents of Ashly, who has Down Syndrome. They are now suing a clinic, a hospital and the university affiliated with the hospital, for not performing certain tests that may have determined that Ashly had Down Syndrome. The parents are seeking damages to help defray the costs of her care.
In this Miami Herald story, they explain that if they had known about her disability, they would have had Ashly aborted:
http://www.herald.com/content/mon/news/dade/digdocs/022513.htm (Link expired)
Back to Top of Page
Couple Sues Doctor For Son's Birth
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
November 6, 2000
PARIS, FRANCE--In what is being considered an historic move, a couple is suing a doctor because he did not let them know that their son might be born with disabilities 17 years ago.
The courts had already ordered medical authorities to pay Josette and Christian Perruche a cash award because they failed to realize that Josette had caught rubella, a virus similar to the measles, during her 1983 pregnancy. As a result of Josette's rubella infection, their son Nicolas was born blind, deaf and has developmental disabilities.
During a hearing on Friday, the couple demanded new compensation, not because of their son's disabilities, but because, they say, their son was born. Mr. and Mrs. Perruche claimed that they would have chosen to have an abortion if they had been told about the infection and its effect on Nicolas.
The BBC quoted a doctor's attorney and the public prosecutor as warning the court that a ruling for the parents would send the wrong message.
"It is an attack on human dignity to regard the simple fact of living as detrimental," said lawyer Didier le Prado, speaking on behalf of the doctor. "This is making a distinction between lives that merit living and those which don't... that's a slippery slope."
The parents' attorney argued that the case should be considered on its own merits, that it would not have wider implications.
The court is expected to deliver a verdict on November 17.
