The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In a move that could see new laws passed against gay and lesbian couples, one lesbian couple from Australia are attempting to sue their doctor after one of them fell pregnant with twin girls after paying for IVF. The reason for the anger is that they asked the doctor for only one child and they believe that their rights include the hospital paying for private schooling and general fees involved in bringing up the second child.
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
Page:
In a move that could see new laws passed against gay and lesbian couples, one lesbian couple from Australia are attempting to sue their doctor after one of them fell pregnant with twin girls after paying for IVF. The reason for the anger is that they asked the doctor for only one child and they believe that their rights include the hospital paying for private schooling and general fees involved in bringing up the second child.
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
This will almost certainly cause a reaction within the legal system as to the rights of same sex couples to not only choose their children but even having rights to medical treatment such as IVF.
In my opinion, this couple are being completely unreasonable in expecting payment because they had 2 children instead of one, surely the fact that they had children in the first place when others could not is enough? Other people who have children naturally don't get to make such choices.
What does everyone else think?
oh dear,
edit: ..oh dear is the only response i can muster without writing anything really caustic
and that is caustic in terms of definition 1 from dictionary.con
1. capable of burning, corroding, or destroying living tissue.
2. severely critical or sarcastic: a caustic remark.
edit: ..oh dear is the only response i can muster without writing anything really caustic
and that is caustic in terms of definition 1 from dictionary.con
1. capable of burning, corroding, or destroying living tissue.
2. severely critical or sarcastic: a caustic remark.
Feel free to be as 'caustic' as you like!*
*within boundries of this forum, obviously!
*within boundries of this forum, obviously!
It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a whole.
In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a whole.
In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with
> advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar
> cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test
> case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
********STOP*********
In this case it seems not at all to be science and medicine that are the matter in question unless the doctor chooses to say yes it was my fault i did it on purpose or to say it is the cause of a not yet perfect process (i vaguely recall hearing something about the statistics of IVF and twins in which case the situation was not entirely out of the blue for the parents).
But since the parents are willing to suggest that an unexpected twin deserves a refund for the bother it will cause them then maybe the doctor could be of the same breed so as to say... ah yes, terribly sorry about that have an abortion and second course of IVF for free.
after all the colour coded family range buggy with ISO9289348 safety certification and neo thermal uber fabric was just for one child and lets not forget what is important here.
I expect that this means there will be another tick box on the IVF form..... and it just might, read tick here if you agree to the ebay terms and conditions for the auctioning of excess babies.
>
> Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by
> any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that
> law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that but you seem void of reason or do I mean feeling. Tell me I am a nit wit and read you incorrectly?
I write that i do not know what you mean because i know nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains to in terms of law but did you actually write that development in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
Have I missed the point entirely?
I suppose for me this reply posting is really focusing on how meaningless everything seems to become, and is fuled by the notion that there may be a few things that mark the breaking point for the wave which cascades through all of our lives and wears everything to nothing. Or in other words the shame seems to be when children become like a Sony Playstation.
>
> The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a
> whole.
You could (do you?) work for the governments spin down department with sentences like that.
>
> In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions
> to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Agreed, but then personally I find this to be the case almost every time with matters so personal yet put out to the world.
> It's just a case of current law trying to keep up with
> advancements in science/medicine. There are lots of similar
> cases each year, and each one usually has to end up as a 'test
> case' because there's no precendent, as this one probably will.
********STOP*********
In this case it seems not at all to be science and medicine that are the matter in question unless the doctor chooses to say yes it was my fault i did it on purpose or to say it is the cause of a not yet perfect process (i vaguely recall hearing something about the statistics of IVF and twins in which case the situation was not entirely out of the blue for the parents).
But since the parents are willing to suggest that an unexpected twin deserves a refund for the bother it will cause them then maybe the doctor could be of the same breed so as to say... ah yes, terribly sorry about that have an abortion and second course of IVF for free.
after all the colour coded family range buggy with ISO9289348 safety certification and neo thermal uber fabric was just for one child and lets not forget what is important here.
I expect that this means there will be another tick box on the IVF form..... and it just might, read tick here if you agree to the ebay terms and conditions for the auctioning of excess babies.
>
> Whilst it would be a shame to see childless couples affected by
> any ruling or lawmaking as a result, the important thing is that
> law and science, as well as ethics, continually develop.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that but you seem void of reason or do I mean feeling. Tell me I am a nit wit and read you incorrectly?
I write that i do not know what you mean because i know nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains to in terms of law but did you actually write that development in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
Have I missed the point entirely?
I suppose for me this reply posting is really focusing on how meaningless everything seems to become, and is fuled by the notion that there may be a few things that mark the breaking point for the wave which cascades through all of our lives and wears everything to nothing. Or in other words the shame seems to be when children become like a Sony Playstation.
>
> The overall result will usually be of benefit to mankind as a
> whole.
You could (do you?) work for the governments spin down department with sentences like that.
>
> In this particular case there are too many unanswered questions
> to be able to comment specifically, leave it up to the experts.
Agreed, but then personally I find this to be the case almost every time with matters so personal yet put out to the world.
The "Oh dear" is no stranger tot his forum.
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
I do not perceive this as being similar or appropriate really but for some reason i remembered something which i had heard more than 10 years ago, i hope this link is reliable. AND NO THIS IS NOT A COMMENTARY ON ANYTHING ANYONE HAS SAID JUST SOMETHING THAT CAME TO MIND
iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the attendant staff didn't act upon.
There are so many permutations here for the law to take into account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute, what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what right does the hospital have to force the implantation regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of examples of women changing their minds at the last minute, though.
> I write that i do not know what you mean because i know
> nothing about what the childless couples statement pertains
> to in terms of law but did you actually write that development
> in law, science and ethics (haha?) is more important by
> sufficient orders that what we have is 'a shame'.
English is my first language but this sentence/question doesn't make a lot of sense so it's hard to reply.
If it's any help with re-reading what I said, the lesbian couple's twins are 3 years old and 2 minutes before she was implanted the mother, who had previously signed a form of consent for the implantation of two embryos, stated verbally that she only wanted one embryo implanted, a request which the attendant staff didn't act upon.
There are so many permutations here for the law to take into account, like what right did the embryo that was to be rejected have to life if it was going to be discarded at the last minute, what right did the consultant have to force an abortion after the incorrect implantation, what takes precendence, the signed written agreement or the unfulfilled verbal agreement, what right does the hospital have to force the implantation regardless of a verbal request, what right did the mother to be have to discard an awaiting embryo in the first place.
There are no precedents for this case in Australia. Plenty of examples of women changing their minds at the last minute, though.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
> Plenty of
> examples of women changing their minds at the last minute,
> though.
Generally accepted as universal law, isn't it?
Page: