October 13th 2007

  Buy Issue 2766

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: China the key to Burma crisis

HUMAN RIGHTS: Christian freedoms under attack

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Election outcome will shape Australia's future

DRUGS: Parliamentary report's tough stance on illicit drugs

TERRORISM: After APEC: security review urgently needed

SCHOOLS: What price should we pay for progressive education?

LIFE ISSUES: Abortion - women's choice or coercion?

OPINION: Doctor sued over unplanned second child

COMPETITION: Coalition strengthens Trade Practices Act

INTERNET-FILTERING: YouTube launch of AFA election brochure

RURAL AFFAIRS: Farmers protest as water crisis deepens

CINEMA: Australia's seamy underside laid bare - The Jammed


How to reward teachers in special schools? (letter)

That Swedish film again (letter)

Proving his manhood? (letter)

Peter Keogh remembered (letter)

BOOKS: DELUDED BY DAWKINS? A Christian Response to The God Delusion, by Andrew Wilson

BOOKS: THE DANGEROUS BOOK FOR BOYS: Australian Edition, by Conn and Hal Iggulden

Books promotion page

Doctor sued over unplanned second child

by Tim Cannon

News Weekly, October 13, 2007
Our laws don't always equate with justice, argues Tim Cannon.

The recent case of a lesbian mother suing over the birth of an unintended second child (Canberra Times, September 18, 2007) points to a problem which is deeply ingrained in contemporary society, namely the dissonant relationship between humanity and the cold, mechanical systems which govern human existence.

It is a strange and reciprocal relationship: we create and utilise systems in order to achieve desired outcomes, and yet the systems inevitably end up influencing our behaviour. Economic systems, for example, moderate our spending habits; technological infrastructure affects the ways in which we communicate; and legal frameworks colour the way we conduct ourselves in society.


The impact of such frameworks on human behaviour is not always positive, as the aforementioned case of the unwanted second child makes patently clear. Seeking medically-assisted conception through IVF, the mother wanted one child. The embryologist implanted two embryos, both of which proceeded to gestation. The mother has subsequently sued for the cost of raising the unintended and unwanted second child.

There has been no shortage of alarm at the perceived callousness of the mother's response. A recent Sydney Morning Herald article reported a call by Australian Medical Association ACT president Andrew Foote to change ACT law in such a way that would "enshrine the principle that a healthy baby is not a loss", as has been done in other states (SMH, September 25).

In response, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope defended the legal action by the mother of the unwanted child, saying: "We are talking about … the right to sue in an instance where one has actually invested one's trust in a professional, a doctor, to prevent or provide a service, and for that duty of care not to have been met."

Apart from highlighting the fact that, as a society, we have become far too flippant about when, how and why we create human life, the two responses represent the very dissonance to which I referred earlier. According to the letter of the law, Stanhope cannot be faulted. The doctor, in performing a service, has most certainly neglected his duty of care.

And yet, one cannot help feeling that a case such as this is exceptional, because it concerns a child, another human, who should not be objectified. (This, of course, takes the rather immense ideological liberty of assuming that a child - or any human for that matter - should not be objectified.)

If this were a case of a doctor accidentally grafting two noses onto the face of a crash-victim instead of the customary one, we could understand a legal suit suing for the ongoing medical and social costs associated with living a two-nosed life. But in such a case, one always has recourse to discarding the unwanted nose. Not so with a child.

The recipient of an additional child is suddenly burdened with the terrifying prospect of duty. There is now an other to whom an ongoing responsibility is owed. And unlike the doctor's duty of care, which is conditional in this case upon his being commercially engaged by the patient, a mother's duty of care to a baby is unlimited and unconditional.

Foote and Stanhope's contrasting responses to the case represent two very different worldviews. One is legalistic, uncompromising, and utterly convincing in theory. The other is idealistic, disruptive and often highly emotional. The question is, which is the better of the two?

Structures, frameworks and systems tend to be rigid and uncompromising. They do not readily accommodate considerations of "human-ness". It is a problem with which workplaces have grappled throughout history, and particularly since the dawn of the industrial age. Men and women constitute human capital, but they cannot be treated like machines. Machines do not have families to care for, or emotional and social natures which must be taken into account. Workplace systems which fail to recognise the qualitative difference between human capital and other factors of production in theory invariably court failure in practice.


But the dissonance between human-ness and procedural structures and systems seems most obvious when it involves the most vulnerable, especially babies.

King Solomon of the Old Testament faced the very same problem when asked to arbitrate a dispute between two women regarding which of them was the mother of a baby. Each woman had a convincing case, so Solomon's solution was to call for the baby to be cut in two, with each woman receiving half.

While one of the women accepted this as a just outcome, the other woman preferred to give up the baby in order to save its life, and her compassion, which indicated that she was truly the baby's mother, convinced Solomon to award custody of the child to her.

Back in the ACT, Chief Minister Stanhope seems more committed to legal procedure than child welfare. "Let's thrash [the legal] principle out," he says, "rather than get into this 'Oh, you don't love children as much as I do' nonsense that [AMA ACT President] Dr Foote is going on about."

Were the Old Testament to tell the story of King Stanhope, one suspects the women may well have been presented with half a baby each. After all, justice is justice.

-- Tim Cannon works as a research officer with the Thomas More Centre, Melbourne.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am