IVF, Twins, and the Least-Cost Risk Bearer
A couple in Australia went for in vitro fertilization. The doctor implanted two embryos instead of one, purportedly against the express wishes of the couple.
His reasoning? Apparently for a birth mother of this age and for embryos in this condition, he wanted to guarantee that at least one would develop into a healthy child. Here is the story from the Melbourne Age [h/t to Brian Ferguson]:
I don't know whether the doctor committed a tort or a breach of contract in this case. But it does seem pretty clear that the doctor was the least-cost bearer of the risk that the couple would have twins when they wanted only one child. The only question is what is meant by "one": should it mean "no more than one" or should it mean "at least one" or should it mean "exactly one". Given the discussion in the original article,it seems that in this case "one" means "exactly one" embryo.
btw, for this case it should be irrelevant that the couple is lesbian.
His reasoning? Apparently for a birth mother of this age and for embryos in this condition, he wanted to guarantee that at least one would develop into a healthy child. Here is the story from the Melbourne Age [h/t to Brian Ferguson]:
They wanted to have a child together. Instead, they got two. Some might call it a blessing. But to this couple, the unexpected addition to their family was devastating. So devastating, that the unnamed ... couple are now suing Canberra obstetrician Dr Sydney Robert Armellin for more than $400,000. Most of it is to cover the cost of raising one of their twin three-year-old girls.Unfortunately the rest of the article discusses, in very vague terms, the social mores and the standard practices of the IVF labs of Melbourne. But it appears that the standard practice is NOT for the attending obstetrician to play god and make decisions for the couple. I.e., if they specify one embryo, that is what the doctor is to transfer.
The couple allege they had made it clear that they wanted only one embryo transferred during the IVF process. Instead two were transferred, leading to the twin birth. The impact on their relationship and indeed their lives, according to evidence given in court this week, has been considerable.
"She always said that she had a big heart filled with love," ... said of her partner in the ACT Supreme Court yesterday. "I find (now) that she doesn't have the same ability to love that she used to and the same capacity to, I guess, embrace differences and issues as a couple or as a team."
I don't know whether the doctor committed a tort or a breach of contract in this case. But it does seem pretty clear that the doctor was the least-cost bearer of the risk that the couple would have twins when they wanted only one child. The only question is what is meant by "one": should it mean "no more than one" or should it mean "at least one" or should it mean "exactly one". Given the discussion in the original article,it seems that in this case "one" means "exactly one" embryo.
btw, for this case it should be irrelevant that the couple is lesbian.
Category: Economics, Economics and Law, Health and Medicine Posted on
Friday, November 9, 2007 at 3:21am
<< main
Re: the status of doctors, I think limited liability makes sense. :-)