Over the past week, the British media have been up in arms about the case of the Thompsons, who successfully sued their fertility clinic for transferring three embryos rather than two, an act that led to the birth of their triplets. But instead of showing sympathy for this couple, the line-up of columnists, commentators and a few (but inevitable) family values campaigners were positively venomous.
Why did the Thompsons or, more specifically, Mrs Thompson provoke this outpouring of bile? The first charge against Mrs Thompson is ungratefulness. According to the Daily Express, whose leader read 'Every child is a miracle', Mrs Thompson should be happy with the triplets, since every baby is a blessing. But, according to many, she should be especially grateful because the triplets were conceived through fertility treatment. Does this mean that just because Mrs Thompson needed medical assistance to have a child, her rights as a patient (not to undergo a procedure she has not consented to) can be disregarded?
The second accusation hurled against Mrs Thompson is her unfeeling attitude towards her children. By going to court to claim financial compensation to help bring up the child she did not plan for, she is publicly stating that that child is unwanted. But this is rubbish. Many children are unplanned: the Chief Medical Officer has estimated as many as 50 per cent of conceptions are unintended. But that doesn't mean that any resulting children are unwanted. In most cases of unplanned pregnancy, however, no-one is really to blame. But if someone other than the mother and father is responsible for the birth of an unplanned baby, why should they not be held to account? If a contraceptive is faulty and a conception follows, it seems fair that the manufacturer of the contraceptive take responsibility. This case is no different in this respect. Mrs Thompson no doubt loves all her children, but a fertility clinic is to blame for the unplanned conception of one of them and it should be called to account.
And as if that's not enough, Mrs Thompson has also been accused of greed. But as Mrs Thompson has said, 'this case was not about money. It was about choice and having my choice respected'. In other areas of medicine, patient choice is championed. Why can't it be the same for reproductive medicine?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.