To think this mother deserves to keep this money?

[SameDifference]

Hi all,

You may have heard of the mother who has been asked to repay over half the compensation payment she received to care for her son, who had spina bifida which the hospital did not spot during her pregnancy, after his death.

As a disabled person who has heard of several people getting similar payments, I've never heard of anyone having to repay any such money in this situation.

I don't think she should have to repay the money. I've written on the case at my website: samedifference1.com/2013/05/16/mother-asked-to-repay-compensation-after-son-with-spina-bifida-dies/ ?

This is not advertising for my site- I simply want opinions from people who hopefully have no personal connection to disability.

After writing the linked post, I read a Daily Mail article saying that the compensation was fought for because the mother was not given the choice to terminate her pregnancy.

I agree with Booyhoo.

Midnightscribbler- compensation is awarded for disabilities where a hospital is at fault in some way- where a child would not have been disabled if the hospital staff had acted to prevent a difficult labour/operation gone wrong, or, in this case, spotted the disability in pregnancy and given the mother the choice to research it/be prepared/or terminate.

That is not to say that the life of a disabled child is wrong, but as a disabled 'child,' now an adult I'll tell you my personal experience.

I lost my severely disabled best friend when he was 17. He had compensation because his disability was the fault of the hospital. It was used to give him the best life possible. He was much loved exactly as he was by all who knew him.

But he- and his mother- were wronged because, had the hospital not made those errors, he would not have been disabled, and there's a very good chance he would be here today.

Compensation can never reverse the error. What we need to do is improve the care given to women in pregnancy and labour and to newborns after birth. But compensation is a great help to families who face high costs to give their children a good life. It is deserved- by children and their families.

I know someone whose DS got compensation because his spina bifida wasn't diagnosed until after birth. Being diagnosed later meant surgery that normally happens at birth was delayed and he ended up more severely affected than he would have been. So it wasn't a wrongful birth, but medical malpractice/negligence

The money is in an account that can only be accessed for his equipment needs though. So he has used some to buy a really good quality wheelchair that is much better than the nhs ones and a special needs bike but he couldn't have used it to buy a nice house.

It's such a sad situation. I don't think she should have to pay the money back now but I do think it should have been awarded differently in the first place eg a certain amount per year to stop if the child dies, similar to dla.

That's what I wondered Ellie - where I work we perform the operation to close the spina bifida, and we are trained in how to nurse the baby from delivery until they are ready for theatre - we wrap the exposed area in cling film and damp gauze, and nurse the babies on their fronts completely flat for example. A baby born in a hospital where the nurses aren't trained to care for them will have to be transferred to a surgical unit, and this obviously leads to a delay getting them into theatre. Usually for spina bifida though the baby isn't regarded as an emergency case - they are put onto a routine list and done in normal hours, unless there is some reason to go earlier. So there is a possibility that if he was born in the 'wrong' hospital there may have been consequences, but he would presumably have had disabilities wherever he was born. There must be more to it, surely? Is she saying that had she known she would have terminated? Because scans aren't 100% accurate as has already been said, you're told that when they do it . I didn't realise that you could sue for 'wrongful birth' in this country :(

As for keeping the money, then no, she shouldn't, although it is of course very very sad.

Yes her claim was that she would have aborted if she had known the extent of his disabilities. The hospital said that they would only have been able to detect the spina bifada and not his other disabilities and they settled. The settlement was interim, with the plan to do a reassessment when he was older and then make a final settlement then (I saw something suggesting a full settlement of $6M was anticipated). The negotiation was not for pain and suffering (this isn't really used in UK law) but for the costs over and above raising a not disabled child.

I don't know, the money has already been spent on buying an appropriate house for th child's needs, it is very unfair to turf her out. If there is any money left she should pay it back.

Mabey she could buy a much smaller house and give the rest back.

Samedifference, the situation you describe is to the same as the one we are talking about here.

There is a very very big and significant difference between hospital care causing a disability, and hospital care failing to pick up a disability before the child has even been born. With the latter, the disability would have been present no matter what the hospital did or didn't do.

I find it very distasteful that this woman was given 'compensation' because she didn't have the chance to abort in the first place.

CloudsAndTrees- I know the situations are different. I was responding to a poster who said that they do not agree with compensation as the life of a child can never be wrong. That compensation suggests people have been wronged.

In this case the mother clearly felt she had been wronged by not being given the choice to abort.

I know she felt she had been wronged, but that doesn't neccesarily mean she was. I don't know, maybe her child wouldn't have been as disabled if they had known before the birth and had been ready for his arrival.

My main issue is that she shouldn't have needed to try to sue. She was put in that position partly because our country does not adequately provide for disabled people and their carers. I just can't get my head around the horror of having to say you would have aborted your child just so you can get adequate provision for them. Maybe she genuinely felt it, but she might not have done.

She no longer needs the money. It is not there as "compensation" for her, but in order to give her child the care he needs. As he is sadly no longer in need of it, she has to give it back.

I can't believe how many saps believe a woman should be able to hold onto what is effectively a lottery win because the family member who the money was intended for unfortunately died earlier than expected. It's exactly the same sappy emotional blackmail techniques that many 'charitable causes' now operate with to extract money which very often makes the wrong people very rich.

Gosh, what an emotive case. My heart goes out to her, but I can't see on what grounds she should keep the money.

OP, can you explain why you think she 'deserves' it exactly?

She gave up 6 years of her life to care for her son. Anyone who does that deserves as much money as they can get for loss of earnings, and the emotional stress of having a disabled child.

I've been disabled since birth and if she was my mother, I would want her to keep the money and use it as she wished.

I don't think she should be able to keep the money.
What she said in court, to get the money in the first place, was "I want money because if you had notified me of this condition before birth I may have had my child aborted". Which to some people would be fine. But not clever people, surely?

She wanted money because she may have aborted her child had she known.
She got money. Which she used to buy herself a £400,000, GIGANTIC house.
Now she's saying she doesn't want to give the money back because it was given for her to look after her child etc etc. But.. she bought a house. A fecking huge house.

I could understand if she'd used the money to buy a bigger house so's to be able to make changes for the kid, like if he needed a walk-in shower room for example or other needs based on his disability. But looking at the photos, this hasn't been done. It's just a great big fancy pants house. She claims she'd be "homeless" if she moved out because the NHS wants £300,000 from her.

£420,000 (asking price) - £300,000 (NHS) = £120,000.
How many homeless people do you know who have £120,000 in the bank?

I don't think she should have gotten the money in a giant lump sum in the first place. On top of that it seems she used the majority of the money on herself (I can't imagine a 6 y/o would have picked out that exact house on their own...). On top of THAT she now wants to keep money that was intended for the child's medical bills.. a child who has sadly passed away. If her child had been 18 or over it's possible the money would have gone to him seeing as he would have been an adult. So.. why does she think she should keep it?

All my condolences on the passing of the child. all my WTF's on the claim to keep the money.

Also, op said
"She gave up 6 years of her life to care for her son. Anyone who does that deserves as much money as they can get for loss of earnings, and the emotional stress of having a disabled child."

Well. This is true. But unfortunately the world doesn't work that way, so it's sort of tough luck for her in terms of keeping the money.

True but no one actually gets money for.

My DGM has looked after me since I was 11, there has been many many times where I haven't even been able to sit up in bed or get up and she has never got a penny and she didn't even choose to have me.

Unfortunately the money isn't there and although it must be heartbreaking for her, I can see why the would want the money back. It could go to someone else who needs it.

Sorry, she has looked after me since I was 3*, I've been obviously disabled since 11.

Eatenbyzombies- she did say the house was adapted to meet the child's needs...

It is really sad that her little boy has passed away, but what is she going to do living in a large house with has been adapted for a disabled person?
She is young enough to look for work and start continue with her life.
The compensation was there to provide for her son's health needs, she needs to give it back.

deserves as much money as they can get for loss of earnings
I disagree. They 'deserve' as much money as they and the child need. Loss of earnings has to take into account how much that person actually earned and could reasonably expect to earn in future. i.e. someone who usually earns £15k a year and has to give up work cannot claim the same loss of earnings as someone who usually earns £60k. She lived in a bedsit when he was born so I'm assuming her earnings were minimal.

and the emotional stress of having a disabled child
Her son's disability was not caused by the NHS or through negligence. It is possible that she could've had the option to abort had she had the opportunity, but that is not the same as them causing the disability he was born with.

I couldn't guess how many thousands of people there are in the UK living through as much heartbreak and caring for their disabled children without the financial help that she has had. Even after she has paid back the money, she'll be left with a capital amount that most people in this country will never have and she can use that to train for a career or start a business and look after herself financially.

The compensation was award to the child, when he died it should go to his next of kin,

unbelievably vile to make someone lose their home as well as their child.

Why should it go to his next of kin? The money was awarded for the needs of the child. It is not an inheritance or a lottery win.

There are thousands of disabled children and their carers in desperate need. She does not NEED a big, specially adapted house any more. It is very sad, yes. But you need to look t the bigger picture.

It is a very sad case. Emotion tells me that it would be cruel to turf her out but logic tells me that it's not her money, it was her son's money. She did not need such a big house, simply an adapted or accessible one.

even if anyone felt that some money should be repaid it definitely shouldn't be half.

eg the house and the adaptations, loss of earning to care for ds for 6 years, loss of future earnings due to loss of any career etc would mean that probably only a tiny proportion would cover care for the remaining 4 years to cover more basic care (As adaptations already done regardless of how long he lived) would be a much smaller percentage.

I know a young adult who grew up in care and won compensation for medical negligence. Social services are now trying to claim back the cost of past care. Never mind that the award was given to cover the cost of future care which social services will no longer have to provide.
I hadn't read of the case of the child with Spina Bifida but what I do know from experience is that adaptations do devalue a house and as other posters have stated the money would have been paid by annual amounts which will have ceased on the childs death. There might have been a lump sum paid to the mother as compensation and maybe it was well invested, if so I think she is entitled to keep this.