Compensation for the wrongful death of a loved-one.

[bubble99]

What's your view on this? I agree that, if a family bread-winner is wrongfully killed, compensation to support a family is justified. Or money paid to a baby wrongfully damaged at birth to pay for ongoing care as a result. But how do you feel about compensation being paid to the family of a child. What does/should compensation represent? Is it a valuable deterrant for future screw-ups?

I feel comfortable with money being paid to a family to, in someway, put right what went wrong, I know of a family who are using compensation money to pay for IVF treatment after the negligent death of a naturally conceived 11th hour baby. I realise that people don't have to answer to anyone about how they spend compensation money, but the whole thing makes me feel uncomfortable.

[emmatom]

Yes we do my friend.

[Tommy]

I think what I was trying to say was.... I could never understand why people would compensation for a death of a child as the money wouldn't bring them back but, since my friend died, I can understand it a bit more.
I think we agree with each other emmatom!

[emmatom]

Of course it does Tommy, that's why I said I was only talking about flippant claims.

Compensation properly and rightly awarded can obviously ease real financial burden.

[Tommy]

I agree Emmatom about the claim and blame thing but I also can see about the compensation thing too now. My friends' daughter died nearly 2 years ago - not through any mistake or anything - and he (dad of girl who died) really finds work terribly hard now. I often wish I could give them the money to pay off their mortgage so he could give up work as I know, even though no amount of money will ever bring her back, that would help him in his bereavement. Don't know if that makes sense but sometimes, money does help.

[emmatom]

I feel a lot of it has to do with those flippin' adverts that pop up every 2 secs on TV basically asking you to blame and claim.

The more people see of these type of inducements, the more they feel they ought to claim, sometimes for the most minor occurence.

It's almost a case of 'well, everyone must be doing it, I don't want to miss out'.

I'm obviously talking about the more flippant cases here, not deaths of loved ones etc.

[PeachyClair]

I know what you mean about that, assumedname, but then why not? Especially if you have other kids, £11K is going to come in handy (should have been more of course) even though of course you'd give that a million times over to have your loved one back.

A dear friend lost her sister aged ten in a horrid fair ride accident. The compensation went into her savings (Mum and Dad didn't need it) and eventually it paid for her wedding and house deposit. That seemed like a positive way of using the money to me, to help build her a new future.

Also, I suppose if I lost a child or loved one, it would take me a good long time to recover. The option of taking six months out from work, to do so might well benefit my family in the long run.

I think really it's a shame that it's termed 'compensation', because surely there can be no such thing. Perhaps life re-start grant?

[assumedname]

I just don't understand the compensation culture.

Why would you want £11,000 because your adult son or daughter was killed? (Apart from the funeral expenses.)

The only time it makes sense to me is when the breadwinner is killed, or someone is permanently disabled and needs long-term help/care.

[PeachyClair]

i think things are seriously unbalnced in our value systems, when that becomes the case.

[monkeytrousers]

Oop's sorry. Just been reading a Rainbow story!

[monkeytrousers]

Good point Bungle.

[bundle]

just been reading that the families of people killed in the recent bombings will get £11,000 compensation...and david beckham is getting "substantial..but undisclosed" damages in his libel trial against MGN and his former nanny (for substantial, read six figs, surely?)...hmmmmmm

[PeachyClair]

you can put a price on a really special funeral though, and some people need the money for that?

None of my friends who lost children due to medical error (two people, see post below) claimed, but i think having the option is good- especially as my Cousin racked up credit cards of debt travelling from the South West to the Midland to see her 6 year old (he contracted MRSA after a heart op). Couldn't have blamed her ahd she wanted to claim to help clear them.

[assumedname]

If a child of mine died through negligence I wouldn't expect or want compensation.

You can't put a price on a life.

[sweetkitty]

I have a friend who is facing an inquest following the death of her baby, it was neglegent on the part of the hospital. Her solicitor has told her to expect about 8K - the price of a child. To her the money is nothing but what gets me is that if the doctor had sexually harassed her she would be looking a a much more hefty payment. What about employers sexual harassment claims that are like 100K+. I mean surely losing your child is more harrowing or is it?

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it is not a fair across the board system.

[nottmee]

I am ambivalent about payouts - yes, the loss of a husband/breadwinner is an obvious case for compensation. But Victoria Climbie; no.

I was raped and my exhusband was entitled to claim compensation (the final divorce papers were not signed as he ripped them up to keep his "married" status) as "victim by ricochet".

He told me that it all worked out nicely for him as he wanted to start up a business and it would have been a handy little sum.....That really made me sick.

Compensation should be considered within clearly defined guidelines and not be used as a form of income by those for whom it was clearly never intended.

[monkeytrousers]

I think it's unfair to blame the parents as we aren't privvy to the reasons as to why they did what they did. It would only be fair to think that they thought they were doing the best for her at the time, as any parent would. Like QoQ's has said, the Ivory Coast has been in a terrible state for years now. It's a failure of our imagination that we cannot think why they would do such a thing.

You can never be compensated for loosing a loved one, it's an irrevocable loss. But we live in a world where money means everything. If these people had enough money they wouldn't have needed to send Victora here. If they have another child or if they have other children already, then it will help them build their lives together on a more secure foundation. Some value must be placed on a life, if not money then what?

I agree with Edams point that fiscal rewards are the only way that corps can recognise their responsibilites. We may not like it but that's the way the world is today.

With respect Bubble, I think it's wrong to judge this family by our moral standard here. Moral standards change when resourses are tight and violence threatens. I doesn't make someone a bad person but choices (as we understand them here) become negilgible.

[bubble99]

If that is the case, then I stand corrected QOQ.

[bubble99]

Where has this turned into a judgement on the Climbie family, edam? This is a debate on a recent case for compensation, which is totally appropriate to the thread-title.

[QueenOfQuotes]

just had a browse around and it would appear that she was her Great-aunt.

[bubble99]

Well, she could have called herself anything. She wasn't to Victoria at all, but yes, you're right, I think she called herself 'great-aunt.'

[edam]

I really don't like the way this seems to be turning into a judgement on the Climbie family. Haven't they suffered enough?

[QueenOfQuotes]

I thought it was her great-aunt????

[bubble99]

In WW2 it was a government directive which persuaded parents to evacuate their children and yes, parents would indeed be deemed selfish if they risked their children's lives by keeping them with them. I wonder what persuades West African parents to send their children to the UK in the 'care' of total strangers. Is it a government directive? The climbie's knew that Victoria was not related to her 'aunt' and even making allowances for the cultural interpretation of the term 'aunt' I wonder who or what persuaded them to send her.

[QueenOfQuotes]

I think at the time she was sent she was the youngest - I've just found an article here which mentions a younger sister who was 5 (in 2003). Victoria left the Ivory Coast in 1998, so the mother may not even have known she was pg at the time, and with an infant mortality rate of about 97/1000 she probably assumed she could well lose the baby.

It's usual for the youngest members of families to be given the opportunity to a 'better life'

[Caligula]

In a culture where sending your kids away to ensure they have a better life, clinging on to them because you love them would doubtless be seen as extraordinarily selfish and irresponsible - if you have the chance to give them a better future, as a parent you have the duty to do that. Who knows what pressure the parents felt under to send their child away? Certainly many parents in the war came under enormous pressure to send their kids away (where so many kids were abused and used as unpaid labour and their stories have never fully come out en masse - we've all had the Carrie's War version of events) and were made to feel that they were irresponsible and putting their kids lives at risk by letting them stay in the cities. I imagine that there may be quite a lot of emotional pressure in families to allow your kids to go.