Comments on: Seattle jury awards $50 million in wrongful birth case

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:47:38 +0000

The 50% number is suspicious. What people involved with genetic testing find is that everybody assumes probabilities of 50/50. Education level makes no difference, not even science and engineering training.

By: Fred

Fred — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 00:41:11 +0000

None needed.

By: gasman

gasman — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 23:19:18 +0000

Sorry Fred,
That line in my post that appears to be an insult was a cut and past from Density Duck at 3:35 am.
I meant no disrespect to you, but suspect that Mr. Duck did. Or perhaps he was just too tired at 3:35 am to think clearly.

Anyway, my apologies.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:42:28 +0000

Gasman, this isn’t the comments section on HuffPo. Save the insults.

Of course that’s why they did the genetic testing. My statement is that he had a 50% likelihood of his zygote carrying the trait and they chose to create the zygote anyway with the intention of later destroying the embryo if it had the trait. Obviously with the increased risk of miscarriage lowers the chances of a child with the trait being born, but the potential is obviously relatively high if they had already contemplated the abortion contingency. IMO, that’s a socially irresponsible and morally repugnant course of action.

By: Jerry Vandesic

Jerry Vandesic — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 15:32:37 +0000

“… at least implicitly believed that they had a 50% chance of a $50,000,000 personal injury …”

Actually the probability is a LOT lower than this. The chance of this kind of genetic problem slipping through would be 50% x ? (the probability of the test producing a type II error) . ? should be very small number for a reputable lab. Apparently it wasn’t, at least for this lab.

By: gasman

gasman — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:38:56 +0000

“50% chance of passing on the trait but they still went ahead?”
Which is why they did this genetic test, you idiot.

I think perhaps his point was that the family at least implicitly believed that they had a 50% chance of a $50,000,000 personal injury, and that perhaps it was foolish of them to rely so heavily on a single test.

In every day life normal folks take individual responsibility for precautions when the stakes are believed to be high. If the train gates are open at the crossing, only a fool would willfully not look each way before proceeding across. If the stakes of a lab test are this astronomical, obtain independent verification. Simple shared negligence.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 07:35:43 +0000

“50% chance of passing on the trait but they still went ahead?”

Which is why they did this genetic test, you idiot.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 01:31:28 +0000

It should be interesting in the future, when the child asks embarrasing questions, and they tell him: "We never wanted you to be born, and were planning to have you killed in utero.

By: ras

ras — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:48:06 +0000

See, if Obamacare had done the test, it would have been done right.

/my sides, my sides!

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:36:20 +0000

Jesus Assumption of the Risk Christ.

50% chance of passing on the trait but they still went ahead? Am I wrong on this?