Accidental Baby
I have a great deal of misgiving about the attempt of a couple to claim under ACC for the accident of their daughter’s birth. Their daughter’s spina bifida (open spine at birth) was not discovered on ultrasound and, as the parents insist that they would have aborted her, if they had known, they are trying to claim for her care on ACC. The case is currently on it’s way to high court.
Let me say at the outset that I find the current system where a child disabled by an accident has access to far more resources than one disabled at birth to be wholly unfair. Disabled children should have access to the exact same resources, regardless of the mechanism of their disability. This means that medically and congenitally disabled children are seriously underfunded (although this is not true for all disabilities).
Having said that, however, I have a number of concerns about this particular claim:
- I am appalled at this couples willingness to label their child, whom they claim to love, as an “accident” and a “missed abortion”. I can’t imagine how this little girl will feel when she is old enough to understand the import of her parent’s legal actions.
- I question whether not having the choice to abort is truly an “accident”. Clearly at least one court agrees with me. There are a number of congenital abnormalities that can be diagnosed with amniocentesis (fluid taken from the womb), for example. But this procedure is not without risk and so is not done routinely. Calling this incident an “accident” would mean that ACC would be liable for all congenital abnormalities diagnosable in the womb.
- I think that this is a dubious side-issue and does not address the real problem of disparities in childhood disability funding.
I do not think that “Bonnie” in the article is an accident. I doubt very much if her parents believe she is an “accident” either. I urge them to reconsider their approach and take their fight to the real arena, the funding of disabled babies.
Related posts:
- Paid Parenthood I saw this headline on Stuff and thought “about time”....
- An Accidental Cancer Some recent research has shown that there is a higher...
- Accidental Rape? The battle between counsellors treating sexual abuse victims and ACC...
- The Accidental Pregnancy Wonderful illustration of false fear-inducing headlines in the Herald today...
- Information Overkill Apparently ACC have been accused of asking claimants for unnecessary...
Nov 11 09 7:33 am
It just keeps piling on, doesn’t it.
Chronic disease, mental illness, birth defects and I’m sure other cases are hammering on the ACC door in order to get fair treatment, disability aids, expensive drugs and so on.
I think the moral hazard of running two parallel social welfare schemes, the best one available only to a select group of people who can claim an “accident” has now caught up with the Govt.
The Trevethic court case(s), this spina bifada case and possibly some coming on mental health are prima facie evidence that could be taken to the UN Human Rights Council to show discrimination against the disabled and mentally ill.
JC
Nov 11 09 9:19 am
This is bizarre. They are claiming that they would have aborted their child after 20 weeks gestation if the diagnosis had not been missed! 2 things – second trimester abortions are not without substantial risk to the mother and there are many spina bifida people who live ‘normal’ lives.
If the child needs specialised medical care, in a public health system such as ours, this should be available through the health system. This case has the scent of greed all over it with the parents trying to enrich themselves through ACC. The same goes for all the ‘sexual molestation’ claims.
Nov 11 09 9:16 pm
“Warning: may contain disabilities.”
It’s the hot coffee case all over again…
Nov 11 09 11:25 pm
Mac: “I find the current system where a child disabled by an accident has access to far more resources than one disabled at birth to be wholly unfair.”
Errmmmm … Mac … the ‘A’ in ACC stands for ‘accident’ or misadventure. Not just general ‘illness’.
Nov 11 09 11:36 pm
Harpoon
You missed the point. It is unfair that a child who is paralysed through an accident has more resources that a child who is paralysed as a birth defect or as an illness. The child is no less paralysed or in less need of those resources. The point being that medical disabilities are underfunded – hence this bizarre attempt to classify a medical problem as an accident.
Nov 12 09 2:26 pm
Sounds like a Jodi Picoult novel ….
‘Handle with Care’ synopsis – When Charlotte and Sean O’Keefe’s daughter, Willow, is born with severe osteogenesis imperfecta, they are devastated – she will suffer hundreds of broken bones as she grows, a lifetime of pain. As the family struggles to make ends meet to cover Willow’s medical expenses, Charlotte thinks she has found an answer. If she files a wrongful birth lawsuit against her ob/gyn for not telling her in advance that her child would be born severely disabled, the monetary payouts might ensure a lifetime of care for Willow. But it means that Charlotte has to get up in a court of law and say in public that she would have terminated the pregnancy if she’d known about the disability in advance.
Sadly, this is real life…