In South Australia a community hospital had to close and be sold to pay compensation to a child with cerebral palsy - although the evidence was very thin indeed that the hospital was at fault. An entire community had to go without for the sake of one child.
Massive compensation payouts have come to be seen as a right and there is some evidence that some people do not begin to "recover" until the compensation issues are settled.
The NZ no-fault system has problems but is preferable to the ever rising costs of medical insurance passed on to the consumer - and, heaven knows, their health system is expensive enough.
Those fortunate enough to have two healthy infants should be thanking their lucky stars not looking for compensation. (How are the children going to feel when they find out that their parents only wanted one of them?)

Communicat, as a close relative has cerebral palsy, I was interested in your throwaway line:

>>In South Australia a community hospital had to close and be sold to pay compensation to a child with cerebral palsy - although the evidence was very thin indeed that the hospital was at fault. An entire community had to go without for the sake of one child.<<

I assume that you are referring to the the Le Fevre and Port Adelaide Community Hospital case, since that hospital was indeed sold as a direct result of a South Australia Supreme Court assessment of $4.8 million in damages. Their insurance covered only the first $2m, and they had to sel the real estate, furniture etc. to try to raise the difference. As was observed at the time, "the plaintiff was left inadequately compensated and the community lost a hospital."

But you did not tell the whole story, did you?

"The hospital had admitted liability in respect of severe brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation during a birth managed by a midwife... As a result, the child was left with spastic quadriplegia and cerebral palsy." http://tinyurl.com/2o5btq (be aware this link downloads a 315k .pdf)

The evidence was "very thin", was it? Shame on you.

I am not a fan of litigation-for-profit of any kind.

But I am a fan of getting facts right, and of not exaggerating simply to support a view.

I am not so sure that those women don't have some right to sue.

Getting away from the emotional thing about "they don't want their kid," there is a genuine issue that they (allegedly) changed their minds and requested the gyn only implant one embryo. This was not done - result, 2 kids.

There is a fair chance they never had any intention of adopting out a kid, but SAYING they thought about it might enhance their chances of impressing a judge about the impact it has had on their lives. Maybe it is opportunism pure and simple ($400k upside) and they love their kids just like you and me??

Communicat, you have gone very quiet.

Was Le Fevre and Port Adelaide Community Hospital the case you were referring to?

If so, some sort of acknowledgment might be in order, that your statement "the evidence was very thin indeed that the hospital was at fault" was pure invention on your part.

Or do you have something else in mind. As I said, my interest was stimulated by the fact that the unfortunate victim had cerebral palsy, and that one of the major theories surrounding CP is that one of its likely causes is anoxia (or asphyxia) close to birth. If the case was indeed based upon "thin evidence", than this fact is important to know.

If, on the other hand, you simply chose your own interpretation, than that is also useful to know. For a couple of reasons.