# Couple Sues Docs who said Child Wouldn't Have Down Syndrome **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 9, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302 "2012-03-09T18:29:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/21 "2012-03-10T15:08:33Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > You seemed to suggest that a parent who unexpectedly has a child with Downs and wants to give the child up for adoption will somehow condemn that child to a life of being bumped through the foster care system. There isn’t even a pathway between those two points: the foster care system is for children who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned–children whose parents have committed crimes against them. Parents who chose to give up their children are not part of it. Are we really at the point where there’s an available home for every voluntarily released newborn? I know private adoptions are very popular, but it’s surprising to hear that none of these kids ever have to spend any time, however short that time period is, in foster care anymore. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/22 "2012-03-10T15:12:52Z")
> [@Omega\_Glory](#): > > Are we really at the point where there’s an available home for every voluntarily released newborn? I know private adoptions are very popular, but it’s surprising to hear that none of these kids ever have to spend any time, however short that time period is, in foster care anymore. AFAIK, you can’t voluntarily release a newborn. That’s called abandonment, and unless you are in a state with safe haven laws, it’s a crime. The state won’t just take kids if people don’t want them: you have a legal obligation to support your child as long as they are your child. But no, I haven’t heard that adoption agencies are turning away pregnant women because they have more newborns than they can place. I have heard of plenty of people waiting months or years to adopt a newborn. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/23 "2012-03-10T15:31:31Z")
Raising a child with special needs is hella expensive. Providing the right specialized care is hella expensive. Usually the child outlives the parents and if fortunate has sibling(s) willing to assume the role of guardian and caretaker. Good luck with trying to do a career fast track and/or with travel while still trying to care for your child. It’s a tough gig and burns up a lot of money. As pointed out upthread, the social safety net provided in the US to special needs children has _cough cough_ gaps _cough cough_ that the parents/insurance need to cover. If there was a better safety net, then the burden on a family would be reduced. One simple example, my daughter gets 30 whole minutes of speech therapy \*per week \* during the regular school year at the very wealthy public school district that she attends. We take her to private therapy, which has worked wonders and only costs $120 hour. I think about the kids that live in a crappy school district, parents on the low end of the socio-economic ladder, no extended family nearby, and don’t have cadillac insurance… I can certainly understand the parents filing a lawsuit. I’m not sure the merit as the test is not 100% infallable, and fate can roll ugly dice. Naturally, I agree with the poster that wrote we need a better safety net as society. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/24 "2012-03-10T15:38:57Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’d like to point out a couple of things here: > > 1. There is a counter-claim that the daughter has mosaic Down’s Syndrome. That means some of her cells have the extra chromosome and some don’t. This does happen in about 2% of people with Down’s Syndrome. The two cells types, however, are not evenly distributed throughout the body. It is entirely possible for cells to be “patchy”, so if you sampled from, say, the left forearm you might get nothing but normal cells and yet the right foot is only cells with the extra chromosome. If that is the case, the CVS could have been done perfectly and just have happened to sampled only normal baby cells and missed the Down’s entirely… which, accounts for part of that 0.3% error rate in the test. From my admitted small knowledge of embryology, this is true. However, I believe if it was true when you were an embryo, it should also be true when you’re an adult. That is entire regions of your body are ‘patchy’ due to having a shared cell lineage. The counter-counter claim in the article is that they’ve re-performed the tests on the girl after birth and only 1-2% of the samples show up as being normal cells. This does not track with the ‘patchy’ possibility in my opinion. If this is true, then It seems more likely that they mistakenly took maternal tissue for the test. For the record, I’d sue. If only because it was the well being and the level of care I could give my daughter at stake. ---
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/25 "2012-03-10T15:58:32Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > AFAIK, you can’t voluntarily release a newborn. That’s called abandonment, and unless you are in a state with safe haven laws, it’s a crime. The state won’t just take kids if people don’t want them: you have a legal obligation to support your child as long as they are your child. > > But no, I haven’t heard that adoption agencies are turning away pregnant women because they have more newborns than they can place. I have heard of plenty of people waiting months or years to adopt a newborn. [Here’s](http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch26/sec4ch26sub4.htm)one page about the steps a social worker would take when working with an expectant mother who wanted to voluntarily terminate her rights. I’d be interested in a cite that you can’t voluntarily terminate your rights to your newborn, short of dropping it off anonymously. It was quite awhile ago (eighteen years) but I know someone who was adopted through foster care after being placed there voluntarily as a newborn by the parents (and not in an anonymous safe haven sort of thing), but it’s very possible that things have changed. I’ve heard of plenty of people waiting years to adopt healthy newborns. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/26 "2012-03-10T16:07:34Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Also, the functioning of kids with Downs varies HUGELY. Not every kid with Down’s Syndrome is severely mentally handicapped. This is true, and nothing the tests can tell you. In contrast to Girl From Mars’ five-year-old relative still in diapers, one of the kids I worked with who had DS was learning to write at age five. There’s a big big range but you won’t know where any particular baby fits in it until well after his/her birth. ---
**Author:** ![Kasper1014](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c89c15/32.png) [@Kasper1014](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kasper1014)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/27 "2012-03-10T16:22:02Z")
At least the mom can apply for Medicaid since her daughter has a qualifying developmental disability. Medicaid doesn’t cover everything…but later on in life, this will help the down syndrome female to be placed in a developmental disability group home, which are Medicaid funded. Knowing the health risks and cost, I would sue too. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/28 "2012-03-10T16:42:51Z")
> [@Omega\_Glory](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch26/sec4ch26sub4.htm)one page about the steps a social worker would take when working with an expectant mother who wanted to voluntarily terminate her rights. I’d be interested in a cite that you can’t voluntarily terminate your rights to your newborn, short of dropping it off anonymously. > > It was quite awhile ago (eighteen years) but I know someone who was adopted through foster care after being placed there voluntarily as a newborn by the parents (and not in an anonymous safe haven sort of thing), but it’s very possible that things have changed. > > I’ve heard of plenty of people waiting years to adopt healthy newborns. From your own cite: > [@](#): > > If the Court denies the petition the worker should evaluate the reasons the court gave for the denial and take appropriate actions, including reevaluating the permanency plan for the child. You can apply to have your parental rights terminated, but it has to be done by the courts, it’s not an automatic option. It will only occur if the courts decide it’s in the best interest of the child–for example, when there is another family who wants to adopt. I can see that they might let someone terminate and place the kids in foster care if 1) there was reason to believe that was coming anyway (i.e., kids had been removed for cause, or mother was in prison or something) and this was just speeding up this process. 2) They were reasonably confident that the child could be placed permanently quickly. But if you have the means to support your kids, I don’t think they will let you just put them in the system and go your merry way. That[s why all those people drove to Kansas to drop off their older kids when the “safe haven” law omitted an age cap. They wanted out of parenthood and had no path in their own states. ---
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/29 "2012-03-10T16:58:32Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > You can apply to have your parental rights terminated, but it has to be done by the courts, it’s not an automatic option. It will only occur if the courts decide it’s in the best interest of the child–for example, when there is another family who wants to adopt. I can see that they might let someone terminate and place the kids in foster care if 1) there was reason to believe that was coming anyway (i.e., kids had been removed for cause, or mother was in prison or something) and this was just speeding up this process. 2) They were reasonably confident that the child could be placed permanently quickly. But if you have the means to support your kids, I don’t think they will let you just put them in the system and go your merry way. That[s why all those people drove to Kansas to drop off their older kids when the “safe haven” law omitted an age cap. They wanted out of parenthood and had no path in their own states. The question was never whether the option was automatic. The question was whether the option exists at all for the people in this situation, and the part you quoted and the anecdote about people flocking to drop off much older kids in a “no questions asked” situation doesn’t provide an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Fionn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fionn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fionn)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/30 "2012-03-10T17:24:11Z")
If I were in the position of the couple in the article, I would file a lawsuit as well. They appear to love their daughter very much, but loving her very much doesn’t magically give them the ability to afford all of the extra care she’ll need or might need. As a side note, I hope law enforcement are vigorous in following up the death threats they’re receiving. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/31 "2012-03-10T17:26:17Z")
> [@Omega\_Glory](#): > > The question was never whether the option was automatic. The question was whether the option exists at all for the people in this situation, and the part you quoted and the anecdote about people flocking to drop off much older kids in a “no questions asked” situation doesn’t provide an answer. I was understanding you to be saying that if a parent wants to transfer their support obligations to the state, it’s pretty much an automatic process. I do not believe that to be the case. I don’t know that it’s ever been the case. Parents who are competent and have the financial means to take care of their children are generally “stuck” with them unless they can find someone else who wants them. The state will only take them if it’s in the best interests of the child-- and the assumption is that staying with your parents is in your best interest. From [Here](http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_custody/voluntarily-terminating-parental-rights.htm) (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Before a court will grant a voluntary termination, they want to know why the parent is requesting termination. Because they want the child to have the privileges of both parents,\*\* they will terminate only if there is “good cause” to approve the request.\*\* Two common situations that often lead to requests to terminate parental rights include: (1) a parent who wishes to terminate his/her child support or financial obligation for the child; and (2) a parent who desires to have the other parent completely out of their life. Neither ground is generally sufficient alone to constitute “good cause” and will not typically be approved. Courts are particularly cautious in these situations because they do not want to terminate a parent’s financial obligation to support the child. Such a termination may mean that the remaining custodial parent will need public assistance to support the minor child. In essence, the court will not punish a child when parents are trying to avoid their financial or emotional responsibilities. > > Most statutes do not specifically define “good cause”, but termination to facilitate an adoption is typically viewed as “good cause.”\*\* Courts are reluctant to terminate parental rights where there is no one ready to adopt the child and assume legal responsibility for financial support. \*\*Where someone, such as a step-parent, wishes to adopt the child, the termination agreement will often be approved because it includes the prospect of someone who loves and wishes to support and care for the child replacing a parent who no longer wishes a parental connection to a child. ---
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/32 "2012-03-10T18:08:51Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > **I was understanding you to be saying that if a parent wants to transfer their support obligations to the state, it’s pretty much an automatic process.** I do not believe that to be the case. I don’t know that it’s ever been the case. Parents who are competent and have the financial means to take care of their children are generally “stuck” with them unless they can find someone else who wants them. The state will only take them if it’s in the best interests of the child-- and the assumption is that staying with your parents is in your best interest. > > From [Here](http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_custody/voluntarily-terminating-parental-rights.htm) (bolding mine): On the bold, no, that was never what I was saying. What I’m curious about was whether the claim that a child in the situation in the OP would never end up in foster care, because there were homes out there for every infant placed for adoption, disabled or not. That, of course, started this hijack about whether the average people are allowed to turn a child over to foster care at all. Your point about financial means comes into play here. A family who was expecting a healthy child might not have the funds to take care of a profoundly disabled child. As I mentioned earlier, I knew of a situation where a child was voluntarily relinquished, which was due to financial issues and who ended up in foster care, which makes me assume a situation like that could occur with a disabled child too. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/33 "2012-03-10T18:38:45Z")
> [@Omega\_Glory](#): > > On the bold, no, that was never what I was saying. What I’m curious about was whether the claim that a child in the situation in the OP would never end up in foster care, because there were homes out there for every infant placed for adoption, disabled or not. That, of course, started this hijack about whether the average people are allowed to turn a child over to foster care at all. Your point about financial means comes into play here. A family who was expecting a healthy child might not have the funds to take care of a profoundly disabled child. As I mentioned earlier, I knew of a situation where a child was voluntarily relinquished, which was due to financial issues and who ended up in foster care, which makes me assume a situation like that could occur with a disabled child too. My point was that Broomstick seemed to be suggesting that it was unethical to allow your kid with Downs to be adopted because their chances of being adopted were near zero and they would therefore end up in the foster care system. My point is that most infant adoptions are handled privately and the child goes from one set of parents to their new parents without spending meaningful time as a ward of the state (though there may be some processing time). If such parents could not be found, the child wouldn’t be put in foster care, they would remain with their biological parents. I went on to speculate that if competent, financially sound parents could not find adoptive parents through any avenue, I do not believe the state would terminate their rights at their request simply because they didn’t feel emotionally or financially up to the task. It doesn’t seem like it would be the child’s interest to go into permanent foster care if the alternative is sound, competent, albeit reluctant, parents. I related what happened in [Nebraska](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law)to point out that there are parents out there who have wanted to have their parental rights terminated and who could not get released from their responsibilities to their kids. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/34 "2012-03-10T18:45:48Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > I was understanding you to be saying that if a parent wants to transfer their support obligations to the state, it’s pretty much an automatic process. I do not believe that to be the case. I don’t know that it’s ever been the case. Parents who are competent and have the financial means to take care of their children are generally “stuck” with them unless they can find someone else who wants them. The state will only take them if it’s in the best interests of the child-- and the assumption is that staying with your parents is in your best interest. My understanding is that you can basically put your child into State care. But you are essentially institutionalizing your child and IMHO making it even more difficult for them to be functioning adults. I can understand why some parents do that, and frankly some of the children can’t be kept at home (dangerous for the other children, risk to themselves, completely non functioning). The Elephant in the Room has a range of parent stories about their special needs children if anyone is interested… Income levels determine what supplementary care may be available. In the recent years of State cutbacks, services for special needs kids have been seriously curtailed. Medicare/Medicad will kick in at 18 when they become an adult if you apply early enough. ---
**Author:** ![Omega\_Glory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7c8e57/32.png) [@Omega\_Glory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omega_Glory)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/35 "2012-03-10T18:53:16Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > My point was that Broomstick seemed to be suggesting that it was unethical to allow your kid with Downs to be adopted because their chances of being adopted were near zero and they would therefore end up in the foster care system. My point is that most infant adoptions are handled privately and the child goes from one set of parents to their new parents without spending meaningful time as a ward of the state (though there may be some processing time). If such parents could not be found, the child wouldn’t be put in foster care, they would remain with their biological parents. > > I went on to speculate that if competent, financially sound parents could not find adoptive parents through any avenue, I do not believe the state would terminate their rights at their request simply because they didn’t feel emotionally or financially up to the task. It doesn’t seem like it would be the child’s interest to go into permanent foster care if the alternative is sound, competent, albeit reluctant, parents. I related what happened in [Nebraska](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law)to point out that there are parents out there who have wanted to have their parental rights terminated and who could not get released from their responsibilities to their kids. Yes, I followed the whole discussion; at this point, I’m not seeing anything new in this post that we haven’t already covered, so it’s probably time to drop the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/36 "2012-03-10T20:30:24Z")
IMHO - it is incredibly wrong to sue the doctor or the test company over a test result that was in error - the test result did not cause the condition, and the condition was clearly _always_ a possibility. even if the test were done incorrectly - it was conducted in good faith. The only exception I would make here is that if the conduction of the test itself was done in a manner that caused actual harm as a result (manner of test, not results of test). We are at the point in this society that I am afraid to give directions to someone - if I get them wrong, I could be sued for loss of time, wages, gas, etc - and at the price of gas - this is gonna get expensive. People finding ways to shore up income and blame others for everything is a crock. I hope this case gets tossed to the curb. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/37 "2012-03-10T20:51:37Z")
For me to be on board with them suing, I would have to see proof that the doctor/laboratory departed significantly from established protocols. Because there is no perfect test. Also, if they were not properly informed about the inaccuracy of the testing, then I would agree that a lawsuit is in order. The mosaicism of the Down’s Syndrome suggest to me that this wasn’t necessarily a case of sloppy laboratory work, but rather just really bad luck. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/38 "2012-03-10T21:35:31Z")
The Levy’s won the suit. [http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/jury\_rules\_in\_portland-area\_co.html](http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/jury_rules_in_portland-area_co.html) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/39 "2012-03-10T23:06:07Z")
> [@simster](#): > > IMHO - it is incredibly wrong to sue the doctor or the test company over a test result that was in error - the test result did not cause the condition, and the condition was clearly _always_ a possibility. Nobody said the hospital caused the Down Syndrome. However the incorrect test result caused the parents to let the pregnancy go to term instead of having an abortion. > [@](#): > > even if the test were done incorrectly - it was conducted in good faith. If you were going in for surgery or medical tests and they were done wrong, would you give the hospital a pass because the error was made “in good faith?” I’m guessing you wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302/40 "2012-03-10T23:16:13Z")
> [@simster](#): > > IMHO - it is incredibly wrong to sue the doctor or the test company over a test result that was in error - the test result did not cause the condition, and the condition was clearly _always_ a possibility. > > even if the test were done incorrectly - it was conducted in good faith. > > The only exception I would make here is that if the conduction of the test itself was done in a manner that caused actual harm as a result (manner of test, not results of test). > > We are at the point in this society that I am afraid to give directions to someone - if I get them wrong, I could be sued for loss of time, wages, gas, etc - and at the price of gas - this is gonna get expensive. > > People finding ways to shore up income and blame others for everything is a crock. > > I hope this case gets tossed to the curb. Simster, Perhaps a different perspective. If you pay a Market research firm to get you accurate demographic figures regarding a certain market. When they report back to you you use that information to make critical business decisions. Then, at a later date you find out those demographic figures are grossly incorrect and it causes your business harm because of it. Do you have the right to sue them? They may have performed the research in good faith, but the fact is you paid them to do a job for you, and they did the job wrong. > [@monstro](#): > > The mosaicism of the Down’s Syndrome suggest to me that this wasn’t necessarily a case of sloppy laboratory work, but rather just really bad luck. We don’t have enough information to know if this is truly the case. As I explained earlier, mosaicism should persist into the child outside of the womb. That is, if the down syndrome is patchy, it should CONTINUE to be patchy in the child. The article states that later only 1-2% of the cells showed normal cells. That number only makes sense in 2 situations. 1. Each sample showed 98% down syndrome and 2% normal 2. They took 100 samples and 98 of them showed down syndrome and 2 did not. #2 doesn’t make sense to me and #1 doesn’t track scientifically (I admit, this is based on my limited knowledge of embryology) with extended areas of patchiness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-sues-docs-who-said-child-wouldnt-have-down-syndrome/615302.md?page=3)