PDA

View Full Version : I know this thread is doomed, but...


Palimax Sceleris
02-06-2005, 04:57 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0502060053feb06,1,2332756.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true



Judge says lost embryo a human
Ruling clears way for couple's suit

By Patrick Rucker
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 6, 2005


An aspiring mother's fertilized egg mistakenly discarded by a fertility clinic was legally a "human being," a Cook County judge ruled Friday, clearing the way for a Chicago couple to file a wrongful-death suit.

If the judge's ruling stands, experts said, it could frustrate the work of fertility clinics and the future of stem-cell research. But attorneys who disagree on the question of when life begins said the ruling likely would be overturned.

"As an anti-abortion activist, I was pleased to see the judge's initiative," said Victor Rosenblum, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. "But as a lawyer, I can't say that he is on solid ground in his reasoning."

The would-be parents, Alison Miller and Todd Parrish, were having trouble conceiving and turned to the Center for Human Reproduction in January 2000.

After a successful treatment, the married couple believed their fertilized egg--or blastocyst--would be preserved by the Chicago clinic for later implantation.

But when the couple was ready to conceive that June and asked for access to their fertilized egg, they learned it had not been put in frozen storage, but was mistakenly discarded.

The fertility clinic apologized for the "human error" and offered the couple a cycle of free in-vitro fertilization--excluding the cost of medication.

Miller "trusted that the clinic would help her when she was ready to conceive," said her lawyer, James Costello.

The couple first sued for damages in 2002, claiming the incident was a case of wrongful death. Two judges rejected the couple's plea before Friday, when Judge Jeffrey Lawrence offered his ruling and an 11-page memorandum supporting their wrongful-death argument.

Because the state's wrongful-death statute protects the "gestation or development of a human being," Lawrence wrote, the couple had a claim against the clinic.

"Philosophers and theologians may debate," Lawrence wrote, "but there is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois legislature when life begins. It begins at conception."

"We are considering our response," said James Kopriva, the lawyer for the now-defunct fertility center.

Many experts pointed to what they see as flaws in Lawrence's arguments, saying it misrepresents state law and relies on language in a state abortion law that has been invalidated.

The abortion statute's definition that "the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception" has been overruled by legislation legalizing abortion, said Colleen Connell of the American Civil Liberties Union in Chicago.

Although the rules are still on the books, "those provisions of Illinois abortion law have been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. They have no force of law," she said. If the judge's arguments are upheld, Connell said, enforcing his ruling would put a crimp in fertilization and stem-cell research.

"The problems with defining a pre-implantation egg as a human being are monumental," Connell said. "Suddenly anyone who damaged a fertilized egg would be open to a wrongful-death suit."

Fertility clinics could never dispose of their specimens and researchers would constantly worry that working with fertilized eggs would lead to a lawsuit, Connell said.

"The judge is probably trying to figure out a way for [the couple] to recover from the injury they suffered," Connell said, but she suggested that they might have a stronger case claiming medical malpractice or breach of contract.

Rosenblum, who is a leading figure in Chicago's Americans United for Life and has argued an abortion-related case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said there is a very good chance that the judge's decision would be overturned "once the Appellate Court and [Illinois] Supreme Court get into the act."

"There is no doubt that pro-lifers believe life begins at conception," Rosenblum said, "but there is no sign that the state law upholds that view."




http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-tribune_news_html&event=noscript
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/)



WRONGFUL DEATH! Holy living fuck. I'm pretty sure that soon enough I'm going to get the death penalty for masturbation.

Chanur
02-06-2005, 05:34 PM
Thats insane....

velvetsilence
02-07-2005, 07:36 AM
WRONGFUL DEATH! Holy living fuck. I'm pretty sure that soon enough I'm going to get the death penalty for masturbation.

Only in a muslim country :D
and isnt this guy what GW term's "activist judge"?

Beelziod
02-07-2005, 09:05 AM
Wacko's on both sides left and right.

Talid
02-07-2005, 09:13 AM
Only in a muslim country :D
and isnt this guy what GW term's "activist judge"?
No, they're only activist if they don't agree with him

Fandros
02-07-2005, 09:18 AM
Actually, the term "activist judge" applys to a host of judges who have taken it upon themselves to make names for themselves by rewriting Law.

It's idiots from both sides who should likely be disbarred and removed from the bench imho.

Fandros

Roliel
02-08-2005, 04:03 PM
I had read CNN's article (found here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/05/frozen.embryo.lawsuit.ap/ ), and they said that nine embryos were created, and one looked particularly promising. What did the couple think was going to happen to the other eight? If accidentally discarding one embryo is considered wrongful death, why aren't the thousands of intentionally discarded embryos every year considered wrongful death?

Fandros
02-08-2005, 04:51 PM
Good question Rol,

I think the Judge will argue that it's the intent alone that makes the difference?

Either way it's splitting hairs and looking to make a name imho.

Fandros

Esbat
02-15-2005, 04:34 PM
Does this mean a woman pregnant with twins could ride in the HOV on the interstate without penalty?

Xapp
02-16-2005, 07:15 PM
No, Esbat. There is jurisprudence in California on a case just like what you mentioned. A pregnant woman in the car was riding carpool (2 people) and was pulled over and cited. She failed to convince the judge that there were 2 passengers and the citation was upheld. I'm not sure what it implies for the definition of a human being, since the vehicle code implied that a certain number of seats needed to be filled with humans rather than a count of the total number of people in the car.

Esbat
02-17-2005, 08:40 AM
Yet, for the purposes of murder, the entity counts as human? Seems a bit inconsistent, but given the nature of the topic and how many debates are raging around it, I'm not surprised.

Anterak
02-17-2005, 10:32 AM
Yet, for the purposes of murder, the entity counts as human?
Even if it counts as human, a judge could argue that it's forbidden to have 2 "people" sitting at the same place, especially in the driver seat. ;)

Twist around, twist around!!

Gulor Gularin
02-17-2005, 10:41 AM
You have to consider the intent of the law, not just the literal wording.

The intent of the HOV laws is to reduce traffic congestion. Allowing a pregnant mother to drive in lanes set aside for multiple passengers does not advance that intent.

The intent of the laws against killing humans is self explanatory. The arguments arise in what constitutes a human. Some states may have a stricter definition than others when it comes to defining fertilized embryos as human, hence the legal issue.

Esbat
02-17-2005, 03:27 PM
The problem arises when the "intent" of one law is subverted by the wording of another law. There was an interesting case recently... ah, here it is: http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/01/15/domestic.html

If an embryo is human, it should count as a human in all cases. As such, perhaps the HOV law should be changed to only include persons over the age of 18 or some such- which, in turn would open up another can of worms as someone called it age discrimination or some bullshit.

Blearchie
02-17-2005, 11:18 PM
intent

That word should be thrown out.

I deal in contract law on a daily basis. Anytime I see someone use that word, they are trying to hide the fact they can't back up their claim. The blanket safety net is "intent".

You can't prove exactly what was intended. You can only follow the letter.

All that "intent" does is stall you 2 more days while you tell the person using it that the written matters, what they think someone meant doesn't.

Gulor Gularin
02-18-2005, 10:57 AM
I disagree (as does the supreme court). Hell, arguments about what a law really means are what make lawyers (and judges) necessary in the first place.... er, wait a minute...if we get rid of intent, we can get rid of lawyers! ummm never mind. j/k

Seriously, intent is the whole reason for having a law. Laws are supposed to serve the people, not be an object that the people serve. Purely literal interpretations have been overruled time and again by any number of courts. The constitution itself is chock full of anachronisms based on the time/place it was written that require some thought into what was the intent.

Thormir
02-18-2005, 12:33 PM
The constitution itself is chock full of anachronisms based on the time/place it was written that require some thought into what was the intent.
Hell, look at the 2nd Amendment.

Esbat
02-18-2005, 02:55 PM
Seriously, intent is the whole reason for having a law. Laws are supposed to serve the people, not be an object that the people serve

I thought the laws were and agreed upon standard of behavior for many aspects of life. As such, they are meant to be obeyed. Don't agree? Fine, but I submit the only ways you're going to get away with a gross violation of the law is to not get caught in the first place, have an assload of money or find a loophole that lets you squirm through.

If laws are in error, they should be CHANGED to reflect the times or changing circumstances. Pardons can be issued after the fact, but until then laws should be enforced the same way to everyone.

Esbat
02-18-2005, 02:56 PM
Damnit, forgot a case in point.

The change to the labor laws in Virginia (?) that would have allowed hotel workers and service workers to refuse to work on weekends is a good example of intent gone awry.
Intent means jack shit.

Thormir
02-18-2005, 03:58 PM
In something so malleable and contorted as law, examples can be provided to demonstrate any given point of view. And any given one of those viewpoints is correct, if the judge overlooking a given case deems it so.