A mother seeking damages from a health authority has claimed doctors breached a "warranty" by failing to abort one of her twins.

Stacy Dow, 21, is claiming £250,000 compensation to cover the cost of raising the one child which survived the failed attempt to abort twins.

 

A court heard doctors effectively give a warranty that the abortion, at Perth Royal Infirmary, would work.

 

NHS Tayside denied liability in the case at Perth Sheriff Court.

 

Miss Dow was told that she would be having an abortion and would no longer be pregnant, the court was told.

 

'Breach of contract'

 

Her lawyer Andrew Smith told the civil hearing she had not been warned that the procedure might not work and assumed it was guaranteed to be successful.

 

He said: "The big issue is the question of whether you can bring a claim for breach of warranty in a case where there's a promise to achieve a result - an abortion - and that fails.

 

"We are saying that if no warning is given then there is a breach of warranty."

 

Ms Dow, who had her daughter Jayde when she was 16, made the claim against Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust, which has since become part of NHS Tayside.

 

She say the trust failed to properly carry out the abortion at Perth Royal Infirmary in January 2001, constituting a breach of contract.

 

She said she did not realise she was still pregnant until it was too late to have a further abortion of the surviving foetus.

 

'Statutory obligation'

 

But the health authority stated that doctors did warn Miss Dow about the possibility she could still be pregnant.

 

Advocate David Stephenson, representing the trust, said Miss Dow was wrong to suggest there was a legal contract between her and the hospital.

 

He told the court that because the NHS was a public body it had a statutory obligation to treat patients, but there was no "contract" between the patient and the doctor.

 

"What she is saying is she had a contract," Mr Stephenson said.

 

"NHS patients don't contract with health trusts or health boards for medical treatment."

 

Sheriff Michael Fletcher, who is hearing the case, will decide later whether it should go forward to the next stage - a proof with both sides giving evidence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk

this is a sick sick women. "mommy why do we have so much money"

"because the doctors didnt kill you" a person like that doesnt deserve to be a mother.

not even that. poor kid has to go to school tomorrow, and she'll be getting all the playground taunts "you're mummy doesn't love you" "your mummy hates you" your mummy didn't want you" "your mummy's a murderer" depending on what slant the kids pick up on it/ overhear from their parents.

 

the article has a picture of the kid with her mother, so everyone who knows them will know its her.

 

you'd have thought that in the interests of child protection, they would have to keep this case anonymous, as they would with any other case involving a child.

lawsuits are getting outrageous these days. people can sue people for just about anything, they can sue rescue crews for pulling their hair, but forgetting to mention that they saved their lives.

An abortion should be the right of a woman, and i believe that. But what she is doing is just retarted

not even that. poor kid has to go to school tomorrow, and she'll be getting all the playground taunts "you're mummy doesn't love you" "your mummy hates you" your mummy didn't want you" "your mummy's a murderer" depending on what slant the kids pick up on it/ overhear from their parents.

 

the article has a picture of the kid with her mother, so everyone who knows them will know its her.

 

you'd have thought that in the interests of child protection, they would have to keep this case anonymous, as they would with any other case involving a child.

 

Thats horrible. i feel really bad for this kid.