Fetal alcohol syndrome case dismissed by Court of Appeal

[Luiz 4,253]

A child born with foetal alcohol syndrome is not legally entitled to compensation after her mother drank excessively while pregnant, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The seven-year-old girl was born with severe brain damage and is now in care.

 

Lawyers argued her mother had poisoned her foetus but appeal judges ruled she had not committed a criminal offence.

The case was brought by a council in the North West of England, which cannot be named for legal reasons.It had been argued the woman ignored warnings and drank a "grossly excessive" amount of alcohol while pregnant.

 

She consumed eight cans of strong lager and half a bottle of vodka a day, the court heard.

Three appeal judges at the Court of Appeal had to rule on whether or not the girl was entitled to a payout from the government-funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme as a victim of crime.

But Lord Justice Treacy said an "essential ingredient" for a crime to be committed "is the infliction of grievous bodily harm on a person - grievous bodily harm on a foetus will not suffice".

'Hugely important' case

 

The girl, who cannot be named and was referred to in court as CP, suffers with learning, development, memory and behavioural problems.

 

BBC News legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the case was significant because it centred on whether or not a foetus was considered a person, independent of its mother.

He said: "This case was hugely important, because campaigners argued that if the Court of Appeal had said it was possible for a mother to commit a crime by poisoning her foetus with excessive alcohol, it would have had the effect of criminalising pregnant women who drank excessively, knowing the dangers of alcohol to their foetus."

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30327893

 

 

[Economy 52,857]

so is a fetus a person? now the whole controversy of abortion comes into play

 

some ppl might ethically contradict themselves here

[FKAJAKE 5]

so is a fetus a person? now the whole controversy of abortion comes into play

 

some ppl might ethically contradict themselves here

 

this is interesting, i didn't think about it like this.

 

i suppose if you have a baby inside u, if you don't plan to abort it your duty of care starts as soon as the baby starts growing.

 

it's not a normal situation tho, like there's nothing reasonable about this so i think we can safely say this woman is disgusting without questioning whether it's technically a crime.

[Brandon 457]

I think she did commit a crime to a PERSON by excessively drinking alcohol, knowing that it would damage her child in the future. So she knew she would damage her child and it did.

It was her fault. So knew it could happen.

If she didn't drink her child wouldn't have those complications. So there is a causality between the mothers behaviour and the complications.

So I think the kid deserves compensation.

If she didn't commit a crime, she performed an act which is contrary to unwritten law in society.

Which also can lead to the kid getting a compensation.

But IDK how the law works in England with getting compensation.

[Rosalina 612]

so is a fetus a person? now the whole controversy of abortion comes into play

 

some ppl might ethically contradict themselves here

 

A foetus isn't a person. 

 

However, the mother chose to give birth to her daughter, and her daughter is now suffering as a result of her mother's actions.

 

Had lost the baby due to her alcohol consumption, then I think losing her child would have been punishment enough. But a real, independent child now has to potentially suffer for the rest of her life and it's through no fault of her own.

[Dayum 240]

A foetus isn't a person. 

 

However, the mother chose to give birth to her daughter, and her daughter is now suffering as a result of her mother's actions.

 

Had lost the baby due to her alcohol consumption, then I think losing her child would have been punishment enough. But a real, independent child now has to potentially suffer for the rest of her life and it's through no fault of her own.

 

If a seven-months pregnant woman, who drinks excessively, is returning home from a party, and the father DUIs and crashes, causing the woman to go under labour and gives birth to a child suffering from abnormalities, who is to be blamed?

 

The father DUI, or the mother negligently sharing the ride with him, or her excessive drinking?

 

And are the financial cost of facilitating the disability and "perhaps stigma" enough punishment, or more must be forked out?

[Rosalina 612]

If a seven-months pregnant woman, who drinks excessively, is returning home from a party, and the father DUIs and crashes, causing the woman to go under labour and gives birth to a child suffering from abnormalities, who is to be blamed?

 

The father DUI, or the mother negligently sharing the ride with him, or her excessive drinking?

 

And are the financial cost of facilitating the disability and "perhaps stigma" enough punishment, or more must be forked out?

 

That's actually a really good question, and one which I'm afraid I don't know the answer.