The legal premise is based on product liability law that is usually applied to manufacturer defects such as faulty car brakes
Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury. "It doesn't matter how much care was taken," says Daniel Thistle, the lawyer representing Donovan, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Genetic tests have revealed that she inherited the disorder from her biological father.The idea of sperm as a commodity subject to product liability laws raises some interesting questions. In this age of personal genomes and genetic testing, how much responsibility does a sperm bank have to screen for genetic disorders with every available test? If a child inherits Fragile X the old-fashioned way, could they sue their parents?
Should genetic disease even be considered 'injury' for the purposes of legal liability? This is quite different from suing a car manufacturer after suffering an injury caused by defective brakes. No defective brakes and you make it to your destination without a crash and a broken leg. No 'defective' sperm and you don't exist at all.
Either way, as more and more genetic tests come into existence and screening becomes more available there will be interesting legal issues to navigate. I should have gone to law school!


Podcast



2 comments:
One important thing to note: Idant has a statement on genetic screening of sperm. (http://www.idant.com/fertilityServices/genetics.htm)
While automatic screens are carried out for particular conditions like Thalassemia or Sickle-cell, one may also obtain professional genetic counseling to find out the genetic history of the donor. Fragile X is not on the list of things they look for, but Huntington's and Hemophilia are.
Interesting.
Though the law being applied here doesn't require the company to be negligent, only that injury has occured (or maybe even just that the sperm was unsafe). At least according to Donovan's attorney.
I'm no lawyer, but if true that sounds like a sperm bank could be sued over 'genetic injury' for which tests don't even exist.
Since a judge has already ruled that sperm should be subject to the same product liability laws as manufactured products, the case probably lies in whether heritable disorders constitute 'injury'.
Does anybody with actual legal knowledge have any insights?
Post a Comment