Case raises issues over testing and the right to travel
WE heard a lot about genetic testing for birth defects and travelling to the UK for a termination of pregnancy in the run-up to the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
Yesterday’s High Court case touched on both these issues and is the first successful wrongful birth case to be heard in Irish courts based on the right to travel.
The mother would have undergone a test known as chorionic villus sampling (CVS) which is offered during pregnancy to check if a baby has a genetic or chromosomal condition.
In this case, she was wrongly told her baby was free of a rare inherited condition although she herself was a carrier.
The test result proved to be incorrect and the baby was born with the disability.
The question which other would-be parents will be asking on foot of the case is how reliable is the test?
Experts say that CVS is estimated to give a definitive result in around 99pc of cases.
It cannot test for every birth defect and it is not always possible to secure a conclusive result.
The advice is “that in a very small number of cases, the results of CVS cannot establish with certainty that the chromosomes in the baby are normal or not.
“This may be because the sample of cells removed was too small or there’s a possibility the abnormality is just in the placenta and not the baby.”
The other issue which was raised was the right to travel, which the mother alleged had been breached as she had indicated she would go to the UK for a termination had the test turned out positive.
No specific damages were given for not being able to travel.
The damages of €1.8m, which amount to an interim payment, relate to the care of the child.
The payment also includes the psychological trauma of delivering a child with a genetic disorder in a case where this could have been avoided.
Another interesting aspect of this case is that a periodic payment was involved – allowing for the family to return to the court in the event of the child deteriorating. This is normally confined to children with cerebral palsy.
The family’s solicitors, Malcomson Law, said it was a relief the action was resolved on such satisfactory terms for the family considering the “enormity of the personal calamity” and the care requirements of the child. They were pleased the child will receive appropriate care for the duration of their lifetime however long that should be, the solicitors added.