IVF Embryo Mix-up

Trying2SaveABuck on 12/04/2025 - 08:51
Last edited 12/04/2025 - 09:54 by 1 other user

The Monash IVF case raises crucial questions about the moral responsibilities of fertility clinics. The incident not only impacts the couple who birthed and the biological parents but also challenges ethical norms. Key issues include the significance of informed consent, the psychological consequences for all involved, and the need for stringent oversight in reproductive technologies.

Now for context the 'baby' is now a toddler and has been raised by her birth parent.

There is not a lot of information about the biological parents but if they have been trying to have a child with no success for a prolonged period of time this could be their only chance to be a parent.

On the flip side the mother raising this child from what sounds like years would have a bond and the child him/herself would see that as their mother and this entire situation would be damaging and confusing for the little one.

Now ideally all the parties will come to the table for the good of the child and find a solution where they can have and love this little one opposed to battle each other in court for custody.

From what it sounds everyone is lawyering up so there might end up being a bitter battle over who is this child's parent.

I'm going to assume a massive civil case from both parties and possibly one day the child her/himself will launch against Monash IVF but in regards to the parents who should rightfully be this child's main parent?

There is no legal precedent in this situation and I personally can understand if both parties feel the right to fight for their sole right to care for this child.

Poll Options

  • 208
    The Birthing Mother
  • 46
    Biological parents
Health & Beauty

Comments

  • MS Paint on 12/04/2025 - 09:18
    +56

    The only winners here will be the lawyers who are scrambling to win a monumental case, enjoy the limelight and make $$$$$$'s. FFS.

    • DingoBilly on 12/04/2025 - 13:00
      +2

      Yep. It's pretty much open and shut win for them. Just a matter of how much.

    • Bruceflix on 12/04/2025 - 21:42
      +4

      That's correct in most family court matters.

    • marshmall0w2 on 15/04/2025 - 08:42

      Even losing lawyers get paid $$$$$$$

  • Xizor on 12/04/2025 - 09:22
    +14

    Absolute ridiculous this sort of thing can happen. The potential for human error, people not caring enough about their work (see it all the time), and how controls are governed must be better. If its happened once, odds are the truth is more.

    • caspochek on 13/04/2025 - 21:11
      +9

      You're 100% correct.

      My wife & I needed IVF help to conceive our children. Without getting too much into it we had an incident with one of our embryos being dropped on the floor and lost, they blamed it on 'human error'.

      Hearing them say human error was the cause again made my blood boil.

      When I quizzed them on how this happened, they just said oh along the lines of these things happen. I asked have they investigated the team member? Did they do a drug & alcohol test? Were they suffering fatigue? All of which they couldn't answer. My work does a more through investigation when a forklift driver drops a box from height FFS.

      Silver lining was we received a complementary IVF round as compensation, which we conceived our beautiful daughter.

      • Xizor on 13/04/2025 - 21:46

        Spot on. Health care is riddled with alot semi competent are careless people these days. You see and hear it all the time. Not limited to health care of course, but as an industry and critical service it should have extremely high standards and accountability.

        • juki on 13/04/2025 - 23:11
          +5

          healthcare people are just people and they work in a system that is trying to aim for the best bang for the buck - cost cutting - increased productivity. That doesnt only imply people being overworked but also the failsafes going out the window

      • Cluster on 14/04/2025 - 16:49

        In Alabama, dropping a embryo on the floor would classify as murder.

        https://theconversation.com/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-ar…

      • marshmall0w2 on 15/04/2025 - 08:45

        I've lived long enough to see how little of a sht people can give at work despite the impact their work has, moreso in healthcare. You would not believe how deranged and antisocial doctors can be, particularly surgeons. The idea that surgeons view themselves as gods in no joke. Unlike how movies and shows portray surgeons as self-responsible, self-accountability-taking professionals, in practice, they would usually literally blame everyone else but themselves. Have seen this happen and heard from fellow doctors and nurses the same.

    • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 10:00
      +16

      Sucked in.
      …
      ToO mAnY h0omAnZ!

      Typical heartless and inhuman response from Protractor.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/04/2025 - 11:59
          +14

          A normal person would feel empathy for the complex set of emotions that the parents of this child are going through, who have definitely been born.

          Just explaining because you seem to have missed how empathy works.

            • [Deactivated] on 12/04/2025 - 12:43
              +9

              @Protractor: Not sure what you're sorry for, because you clearly didn't get my point.

              Now tell me do you think this CF was avoidable,at all?

              The IVF mistake or your comments?

    • onceupon8 on 12/04/2025 - 10:27
      +10

      I don't know if you realise how hard it is to adopt. International surrogacy is prevalent because adoption now days is nearly impossible. I realise there is long term fostering that may lead to adoption but that is very uncertain and problematic.

    • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 10:54
      +10

      Adoption in Australia is virtually impossible and limited to a select group.

      • bargaino on 12/04/2025 - 15:30

        What select group?

        • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 15:52
          +4

          people who
          - can afford the process
          - meet health requirements
          - meet religion requirements
          - dont have political, ideological or intellectual conflicts with agencies
          - have stable incomes
          - have had children
          - are married

          Etc etc

            • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 18:04

              @Protractor: https://www.intercountryadoption.gov.au/countries-and-consid…

              At random, picking South Korea's criteria

              Marriage

              you must have been married for 3 years
              you can’t be single
              you can’t be a same sex
              you can’t be a de facto couple
              you can’t have more than five children, including the child/ren to be adopted

              Age

              Both you and your partner need to be:

              25 years of age or older and not older than 45 years of age
              exceptions are granted by the Minister of Health and Welfare if the Minister determines that the circumstances of parents are adequate to rear an adoptive child in a sound manner (e.g., when the parents are both Korean nationals or willing to adopt a disabled child with special measures to protect him / her.)
              granted special permission if you’re aged between 45 and 50 at the time your home study is completed and are:
              of Korean descent (either you or your partner)
              an adoptee (either you or your partner)
              an adoptive parent of a Korean child

              Finance

              You and your partner must have sufficient wealth

              Safety

              You and your partner must not have a record of any crime, such as child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault or drug use or a history of alcohol and substance dependence

              Health

              Psychological testing

              you and your partner will need to undergo an objective assessment and projective assessment from a psychologist

              Diabetes

              you need to have control of your condition and provide your latest HbA1c test and information about obesity, hypertension and dyslipidaemia

              Epilepsy

              you can’t have had a seizure in the last 5 years
              Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis)

              your condition must be stable and you can’t have been admitted to hospital for the condition
              Arthritis or chronic back, neck, muscular or joint pain
              You shouldn’t need analgesics regularly nor have a physical disability. You can’t have been hospitalised for the condition in the past 5 years

              Cancer

              you must have finished cancer treatment over 5 years ago, without relapse, and shouldn’t have a physical disability

              Hearing or vision impairment

              you should be able to go about your daily routine with or without hearing aids or glasses
              you cannot apply if you have a severe hearing impairment, social blindness or are unable to drive due to vision impairment

              Mental health

              if you suffer any mental illness, you must have held the same job for at least 2 years and never attempted suicide. You will require a letter from your GP and may need further psychological testing
              you can’t apply if you have schizophrenia
              if you have severe depression you can only apply if it hasn’t resulted in hospitalisation and has been under control for at least 5 years
              if you have bipolar you will only be considered if your condition is mild and well controlled with or without medication, and you follow your GP’s advice

              Lupus

              you should only have a mild form with no vital organ involvement. You may need to provide a letter from your GP
              Coronary artery disease, hypertension, dyslipidaemia

              your condition must be under control and you must follow a sensible diet and exercise program
              you can’t smoke and you must follow your GP’s advice
              Hepatitis B and C

              you must have a normal liver function test

              Obesity

              you must have a BMI of less than 30

              Other conditions

              you can’t apply if you:
              are HIV+
              have had an organ transplant
              have myasthenia gravis
              have chronic liver disease
              have neurofibromatosis or multiple sclerosis
              have 2 or more mild to moderate medical conditions
              other medical conditions will be assessed on a case-by-case basis

              Your citizenship

              at least one of you must be an Australian citizen

              Religion

              you can’t apply if you practice a religion that doesn’t allow blood transfusions, unless you’re prepared to sign a statement consenting to blood transfusions

              Number of children in your family

              you can’t have more than 5 dependent children (including your adopted child)

              Criminal record

              you need to supply your criminal record check

              Character references

              you need to provide 3 written references from neighbours, co-workers or friends, which need to include:
              name, date and signature of the referee
              stamp and signature from your state and territory central authority

              • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 18:07
                +3

                @Benoffie: And some more facts

                https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/adoptions/adoptions-australi…

                In 2023–24, 207 adoptions were finalised in Australia. Of these:

                173 (84%) children were adopted domestically (26 local adoptions, 147 known child adoptions)

                most known child adoptions were by a carer (88, or 51% of domestic adoptions) or step-parents (54, or 31% of domestic adoptions)
                34 children (16% of all adoptions) were adopted from overseas – 20 of these children came from countries party to the Hague Convention, while 14 were adopted from countries with a bilateral agreement with Australia (Figure 1).

                Adoption in Australia is rare and difficult.

                • juki on 13/04/2025 - 23:22
                  +1

                  @Benoffie: granted this was in Europe but I met and interviewed a person that was adopted from south america in germany and later found out she was trafficked by an orphanage. her biological parents werent dead. I forgot all the details but it was early 80's and she only found through the dna - ancestry like sites.
                  I believe they also later found out they werent the only one. It was pretty tough on her mentally for a while. Not having grown up or done much with her biological parents that relationship pretty much fizzled out. I can go through notes to find names but its late and this was just for the anecdote to say adoption isnt all rosy and also a business (as some guy above seems to forget)

                • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 20:40
                  +6

                  @Protractor: Not questioning the need for hurdles but there's no correlation for example between a parents BMI and capacity to parent.

                  Equally, we have tens of thousands of children stuck as wards of the state in Australia, costing us millions upon millions and because of the rights of biological parents, there's virtually no adoptions.

                  Yet, change the scenario to surrogacy or IVF and it's the birth mother, not the biological parents, that hold more cards.

                  The inconsistency in Australian laws in this area is just dumb.

                  For me, personally, an egg and sperm are genetic material and unless the owners of that surrender rights, it's theirs. And I extend that to casual sex. But obviously the law differs.

                  • 2esc on 13/04/2025 - 09:49
                    +3

                    @Benoffie: Totally agree.

                    "Equally, we have tens of thousands of children stuck as wards of the state in Australia, costing us millions upon millions and because of the rights of biological parents, there's virtually no adoptions"

                    These kids also miss out on a stable home life often back and forth between different foster parents and the biological parents.

                    I understand the desire to have the children with their biological parent/s but it often puts the kids repeatedly at risk. My sister in law works in child protection and the things she has seen gives her many sleepless night about what the kids have to endure.

                    The kids can be taken from a unsafe home but returned a few weeks later with the system hoping the parents have changed.

                    This pattern just keeps repeating the kids never get a consistent place to sleep, loss of friends, nutritional gaps, disruption to schooling etc and that doesnt even cover what was is unsafe at their biological home if they had a biological home.

                  • endolphin on 13/04/2025 - 10:18
                    -1

                    @Benoffie: Nah disagree on BMI. That's absolutely relevant because it increases the chance that the child will lose a parent/s earlier than otherwise. If it was practically possible to ban any person BMI > 30 having a child, I'd be all for it.

                    • tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 10:24

                      @endolphin:

                      If it was practically possible to ban any person BMI > 30 having a child, I'd be all for it.

                      They kind of ban themselves.

                      BMI and Miscarriage Chance
                      The chance of miscarriage is influenced by body mass index (BMI). Obese women (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) are 56% more likely to have a euploid pregnancy loss compared to non-obese women (BMI <30 kg/m²).
                      Additionally, being underweight (BMI <18.5), overweight (BMI 25-30), or obese (BMI >30) significantly increases the risk of recurrent miscarriage, with the risk increasing by 20% for overweight women and 70% for obese women.

            • coffeeinmyveins on 13/04/2025 - 12:03
              +2

              @Protractor: You must be a hoot to work with

              I bet you have absolutely no one

      • GordonD on 13/04/2025 - 12:10
        +1

        There's one other complicating factor in Australia.

        Aboriginality.

        Kids taken into state care are disproportionately part Aboriginal.

        People who would want to, and be eligible to, adopt are rarely Aboriginal.

        And those who speak for the Aboriginal community put the child keeping touch with whatever Aboriginality they have by being raised in that community ahead of everything else.

        • Muppet Detector on 15/04/2025 - 19:03

          I was thinking about the repercussions of the Stolen Generation as I was reading this comment stream.

          Could be we're now pretty committed to keeping children with their biological parent/s where possible after the slap-arsed circus last time we tried to separate kids from families.

          Might be why these kids keep getting returned to their biological parents.

          Also, been a while since I've studied it but I think that the Minnesota Twin Study ended up saying kids are best off with their biological parents where possible.

          The kids can be taken from an unsafe home but returned a few weeks later with the system hoping the parents have changed.

          But when the authorities remove children at birth deemed to be at risk, the parents raise all kinds of hell.

          Plenty court cases where a mother has already had one child removed but she then has more kids - sometimes next children not removed immediately, other times removed at birth.

    • EFC94 on 12/04/2025 - 15:12

      I stand to be corrected, however I think the world is actually in a population decline?

      • bargaino on 12/04/2025 - 15:40
        +5

        The developed world is in decline. China has probably peaked. The US has also recently peaked, if you exclude migration.
        India's fertility rate is 2.0, but projected to grow by a few hundred million by the peak.

        Africa now has more than twice as many births as Europe, Americas and Oceania put together. And growing.
        By 2050, Africa could account for over half of global births. (mostly sub-Saharan)

        • Protractor on 12/04/2025 - 17:09
          -5

          LOL population decline. From what?.A plague is a plague. The only reason ppl swallow this pro capitalist growth is good scam is that it's specifically designed to make you feel good about the decay of the natural systems as technological advances stun us in awe of our species so called cleverness.Equal and opposite reactions have met head on.

          • bargaino on 12/04/2025 - 20:27
            +4

            @Protractor: Misanthropic as always! Is there anyone you don't hate?

            • Protractor on 12/04/2025 - 20:35
              -4

              @bargaino: Plenty. Mostly ppl who aren't prone to swallowing BS, simply to comply with mainstream selfish,greedy line toeing mythology.
              As you would know, as rare as RHS.
              Look to the US for the antipathy of humanity. That's where misanthropy thrives and is rewarded.

      • 2esc on 13/04/2025 - 09:51

        Certainly not!

        The current world population growth rate is roughly 0.85% per year. This means that the world's population is increasing by approximately 70 million people annually.

      • marshmall0w2 on 15/04/2025 - 08:47

        Doubt. The population is still expanding based on figures. It's the replacement rate that is falling. But if we wanted sustainability, then isn't have a lower replacement essentially what we've been striving for? It was only when globalists realised they'd have less workers that now they're sounding the alarm about "replacement rates are falling all over the world."

    • qtr pounder on 12/04/2025 - 22:03
      +4

      What a (profanity) shit take.
      Should someone who has poor eyesight be refused glasses?
      Treatable cancer, but do nothing and just (profanity) die?

      • Protractor on 13/04/2025 - 09:14
        -3

        What? Because glasses & cancer and the bursting population are comparable?.

        • tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 09:25
          +4

          bursting population

          Only because we are importing people faster than we can construct new dwellings for them to live in.

          The government could slow down the bursting population almost in an instant.

          38k net new arrivals per month
          10k new homeless per month

          So a third of the new immigrants are displacing 10k Australians into homelessness each and every month, with no end in sight. Already a quarter of a million homeless and counting.

          • Chandler on 15/04/2025 - 16:10

            @tenpercent: Yes, the immigrants are displacing Australians - it's right there in the numbers! /s

            You know the 10k new homeless could be the new arrivals, right? Or they're people who would've become homeless regardless of if there were 38k new arrivals or 0 new arrivals, or even 38k net departures…

            Correlation ≠ causation.

            • tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 16:39
              +1

              @Chandler:

              You know the 10k new homeless could be the new arrivals, right?

              It could be. If it is, then they almost certainly lied to get their visas and should be sent home, unless they're refugees or the like but then they get extra help anyway so I doubt it.

              Or they're people who would've become homeless regardless

              No. Highly unlikely for the majority.

              • Chandler on 15/04/2025 - 21:23

                @tenpercent: You should really read your own sources…

                (Emphasis mine)

                2 Housing market context

                […]

                2.7 Chapter conclusion

                […]

                Importantly, however, recently worsening rental affordability for low-income earners cannot be solely attributed to the pandemic. Certainly, the problem has been aggravated by the public health crisis during this period. But data for Australia as a whole (e.g. from Anglicare’s annual survey) demonstrates that this in fact represents only the continuation of a longer running trend. Similarly, while the generally higher rent inflation recorded in regional Australia in 2021 and 2022 will have inflicted particular damage on housing affordability in these areas, there is evidence that here, too, recent experience only extends an already established pattern.

                A detailed analysis of factors underlying recent rent inflation and declining affordability for low-income tenants is beyond the scope of this report. However, while much has been made of the post-2021 surge in migration-fuelled housing demand, it would appear that rapidly rising rents have also substantially reflected unusually depressed supply – as measured in terms of the volume of properties being made available to let.

                […]

                5. Recent homelessness trends

                […]

                5.5 Homelessness triggers and immediate causes

                […]

                In support of a general perception of recently rising homelessness, stakeholder interviewees and SHS survey respondents tended to attribute this to:

                • Cost of living pressures, including declining rental affordability
                • Lack of social (or other affordable) rental housing
                • Growing incidence of mental ill health, often in combination with other factors such as family and domestic violence.

                […]

                5.8 Chapter conclusion

                […]

                […] While this is not immediately apparent from headline SHSC statistics (total annual caseloads), we conclude from our multi-source analysis that homelessness has undoubtedly increased since its pre-pandemic level, and that it has continued to do so in the post-COVID period. Linking back to our Chapter 2 analysis, we know that Australia’s housing market has been recently enduring intensifying stress with rising rents and record low vacancy rates squeezing more people into homelessness. As this chapter has indicated, this has been generating more people needing homelessness services, but at the same time it also means agencies have been finding it harder to rehouse people without homes.

                The result is people stuck in homelessness for lengthier periods and (if they are lucky enough to secure it) experiencing longer episodes of support, and/or more repeated periods of short-term help. More people stuck in homelessness and cycling in and out of services means higher monthly caseloads, but less people assisted across a year, and less new people at risk able to gain access to support until their situation is critical and homelessness becomes unavoidable. Australian policymakers must face up to the need for interventions that can break this-unhealthy cycle.

                TL;DR, in my opinion: rental availability and pricing is a key factor, but migration is not the only driving factor of that availability and pricing. On top of that, social housing services and their kin are also stretched thin, which means people who would usually get assistance and thus not end up homeless are not getting supported by the system.

                I will point out that I have merely skimmed this report, and yes cherry picked (fairly, in my opinion) statements that support my argument. Rewind to my comment and read it again - I wasn't arguing that migration was not contributing to homelessness, I was arguing against it being the (only) cause, and the report that you linked supports my argument (in my opinion) - homelessness was on the rise

                • tenpercent on 16/04/2025 - 06:41

                  @Chandler:

                  rental availability and pricing is a key factor, but migration is not the only driving factor of that availability and pricing.

                  Physical availability of dwellings is indeed the main cause, which in turn causes high pricing. Low supply of dwellings + growing demand to live in those dwellings = rising prices. People already here (which may include some past immigrants too) are being displaced by cashed up new immigrants.

                  If the current cohort of homeless people suddenly ran into a bit of
                  money and could afford to rent, they would merely be outbidding and displacing some other poor victims of the housing supply-demand imbalance in this country. It would be a game of musical chairs between people with rental accommodation and the homeless people who missed out on a chair dwelling.

                  There's only one lever the government can pull to have a relatively quick impact to stem the tide of growing homelessness until dwelling constructions catch up to the number of people already here.

                  • Chandler on 16/04/2025 - 15:54

                    @tenpercent: I think you missed my point, and this is also stated in the report - the biggest issue with availability is supply of new housing. Migration is not helping, no, but whatever you do with migration it doesn't resolve the supply issue.

                    Sure the government could pull that lever and cut migration. What are you going to do about the jobs that those migrants were going to do? They're not coming here to laze on the beach, they're coming here to live and work. That work doesn't suddenly disappear if there's not someone here to do it (and our unemployment rate is exceptionally low right now). You'll end up moving the supply issue from housing to some other industry… Speaking of which, a lot of those migrants would end up working in construction or adjacent industries, which not having them here could exacerbate the housing supply issue…

                    • tenpercent on 16/04/2025 - 17:27

                      @Chandler:

                      You'll end up moving the supply issue from housing to some other industry…

                      Good. People need to live in proper accommodation; not in cars, not in tents, not in cardboard boxes and homeless shelters should be for people who are temporarily homeless for other reasons (domestic violence, mental health issues, etc).

                      Imagine if this conversation were about the availablity of food or water; I don't think anyone who question the wisdom of halting bringing in new mouths to feed. It is abominable that a first world nation like Australia is physically unable to meet the base level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs for over a quarter million of our people.

                      The only way to solve the homelessness crisis (and the rental crisis) is to let the number of migrant family units arriving each year be less than the rate of new dwellings being completed (adjusting for demolition of existing dwellings). If we only let them be equal then we merely pause the problem getting any worse but do nothing to resolve it.

                      Now we can do that in two ways (1) by cutting net migration, and/or (2) temporarily only bringing in people on temporary visas who will be directly working in the construction industry and who will contribute to increasing the available supply of dwellings (i.e. after accounting for any dwellings they will occupy) faster than were they to not come.

                      Once the available stock of dwellings is greater than the number of family units in the country, then we can increase net migration of family units up to a point that is in balance with the rate of new dwelling construction.

    • Xizor on 13/04/2025 - 21:47
      +1

      What disgracefully irresponsible response. Get a clue.

    • Bullzye on 15/04/2025 - 10:00
      +3

      If only your parents had shared the same thought.

  • shaybisc on 12/04/2025 - 10:16
    -3

    I presume that the biological father is the partner of the woman who women who birthed the baby?

    • skid on 12/04/2025 - 10:52
      +2

      No, this is more like a surrogate situation.

    • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 10:58
      +2

      No. It's in the first sentence of the article:

      In an Australian first, a woman from Brisbane has unknowingly given birth to a baby whose genetics belong to strangers.

      So an embryo from a different couple's ova and sperm was implanted in her (by mistake) and she gave birth to a child that is genetically neither her own or her partner's.

  • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 10:53
    +3

    There is precedent, there have been cases overseas.

    The courts generally favour an open adoption arrangement post 5 years, before that the child goes back to the biological parents.

    It is no different to fostering. Biological parents did not surrender parental rights on the child.

    • gromit on 13/04/2025 - 12:40
      +1

      What happens overseas is not precedent for courts here.

      • suzta on 14/04/2025 - 08:44

        O/s cases aren't precedent (they don't have to be followed) but they are what the legal system calls "persuasive" - judges will look at the statutes and case law from countries with similar legal systems and examine what they did and reason on whether they should follow the same approach. Usually they look to Commonwealth countries such as the UK, NZ & Canada.

        IVF has been around for decades. There are sure to be similar cases they can look at.

        Purely from a logical standpoint, I suspect if the kid is very young it will be returned to the biological parents because as it grows up it won't remember the strangers & it is biologically another couple's child.

      • marshmall0w2 on 15/04/2025 - 08:48

        Yes it is. Common law for commonwealth nations, which includes Aus.

      • Muppet Detector on 15/04/2025 - 19:11

        What happens overseas is not precedent for courts here.

        That's not as true as you think it is.

        We certainly do look to the precedents set by other countries when working out how to handle situations we haven't yet encountered in Sustralia.

        Most recently has been for sane automatism (American case called Parkes) and provision of MPD alters to testify in child abuse cases - had one settled out of court, one currently going through the courts now - all possible because of international precedent.

        How do you think we worked out gay marriage?

  • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 11:05
    +3

    The kid should be united with their biological parents as soon as possible with free access to counsellors and psychologists for both the child and biological parents for as long as necessary to help the transition (perhaps the rest of the child's life). The birthing mother should be given a big compensation payout and free access to counsellors and psychologists and her next pregnancy with a different IVF clinic should be paid for including maternity leave, baby products, mental health leave, etc completely paid for by the original clinic.

    • jjjaar on 12/04/2025 - 14:17
      +2

      perhaps the rest of the child's life

      Does that really sound like the best outcome for the child? To take a child away from everything they’ve ever known…

      It might be the better outcome, I don’t know. This is where psych professionals need to weigh in.

      But ultimately, all of the adults here need to put their own wants aside, and focus on what is actually the best long term outcome for the child. As parents should always be doing.

      • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 14:30

        It's a shi77y situation of course. But yes I think that is the best outcome for the child to be with its actual mother and father.

        Imagine if several years after being kidnapped Madeline McCann had been discovered with some other couple who thought they had legally adopted her. Should Madeline go back to her actual parents or stay with the adoptive parents who unknowingly funded some criminal kidnapping ring?

        • jjjaar on 13/04/2025 - 10:15

          It’s a case by case basis thing, I’d say - they’d need to assess each child from each situation to determine their needs and their own best case scenario.

          If the child was old enough to have enough informed understanding, then their opinions should weigh in too. Just like when kids are at family court and they’re given the chance to say who they’d want to live with.

          Should Madeline go back to her actual parents or…

          And this is where the legal v social definition of “parents” is important - what is a “parent”? Because if you asked the child who their parent is when they’ve been with one family for 19 years vs the first three years of their life, they wouldn’t be able to point out their bio parents in a line up. Or in the OP example, forever v never.

          • tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 10:16
            -1

            @jjjaar: So if you steal a kid and evade the authorities long enough it's yours?

            • jjjaar on 13/04/2025 - 18:36

              @tenpercent: lol way to change the goal posts

              or stay with the adoptive parents who unknowingly…

    • morse on 13/04/2025 - 09:36
      +1

      The bio parents might not want the kid.

    • IM-Cheap on 14/04/2025 - 18:15
      +1

      What if the birth mum is never able to have another pregnancy? I'm personally in favour of the birth parents keeping the child and the bio parents suing the hell out of Monash. Carrying and giving birth isn’t some trivial thing and its not anything like surrogacy where the woman is mentally prepared to give the child up from the start - this mother probably adored that child from the first positive pregnancy test and has already devoted many sleepless nights holding her close whispering how much she is loved. Meanwhile the bio family have no current emotional ties to the child.

  • JIMB0 on 12/04/2025 - 11:34

    How did they figure out it wasn't their kid?

    • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 11:52
      -1

      Not a dumb question.

      Usually medical checks find bloods dont line up or a parent realises that the child doesn't look like anyone 🤔

      • Protractor on 12/04/2025 - 12:09
        +2

        I thought the error was spotted internally by the clinic? If that's the case, fancy having an 'after the event' process for the discovery of most basic of (and yet worst case) scenarios. Corner cutting or profit driven or just utter & complete incompetence?
        https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/fam…

        • Benoffie on 12/04/2025 - 13:41

          I mean, great they have processes for this but it should be a redundancy not the first line.

      • JIMB0 on 12/04/2025 - 12:51
        -1

        I was think more along the lines of wrong colour.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 12/04/2025 - 13:47
      +8

      How did they figure out it wasn't their kid?

      The couple who "birthed" the child were moving their remaining embryos to a different clinic. The original clinic discovered one more embryo than should be there during this process.

    • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 14:13

      The clinic realised there was one too many frozen embryos left over for the couple.

    • 2esc on 13/04/2025 - 09:56

      I think Monash discovered it themselves the number of embryos in storage for the biological family was less than it should have been.

  • McMaferMur on 12/04/2025 - 14:17

    The victim mum should sue the hospital for millions dollar. Best child ever

    • tenpercent on 12/04/2025 - 14:32
      +9

      The victim mum

      Which one? The genetic mother or the gestational mother? They're both victims (and the father/s) who've both been incredibly wronged.

  • bargaino on 12/04/2025 - 14:40
    +2

    Would it be naive of me to think the industry would have wargamed all these scenarios long ago?
    If not, what are all these people writing dissertations in medical ethics doing?

    Maternity hospitals are very conscious of the risk of switching babies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babies_switched_at_birth

  • SYLTB on 12/04/2025 - 15:39
    -1

    This is OP's another troll post

    • Protractor on 12/04/2025 - 17:10
      -2

      Stock & trade

  • Dogs on 12/04/2025 - 17:27

    happened in America
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDkgXOK-aK0

  • GordonD on 12/04/2025 - 17:38
    -2

    This case filled the news. And rightly so.

    What got almost no reporting was a change in the rules on IVF.

    It wasn't explained whether it was in one state or nationwide, but previously you only got it paid for by Medicare if it was to treat medical infertility. If it was social infertility you could get the treatment, but you had to pay for it yourself. Medical infertility is when you're having intercourse, but its not resulting in a pregnancy for some medical reason. Social infertility means you don't have a partner, or that partner isn't of a gender that means they can get you pregnant, but you want to have a baby anyway.

    Anyone whose gender means they are capable of getting pregnant is entitled to in our society. But the taxpayer-funded medical benefits system paying IVF clinics' fees to help a single woman or a gay couple get pregnant would seem to be something that should be discussed, and society collectively decide, or at least get reported so people know and can express an opinion. Not decided by an expert, this isn't a issue of fact, it is a matter of society's values.

    It bore some similarity to another story where we were told a couple had arranged a paid surrogacy overseas, and it had fallen through, and they'd lost their money. They couldn't do it here in Australia. Paid surrogacy here is illegal. So they'd taken the chance of getting it done in another country, and when it fell through we were supposed to sympathise with them. The picture of the couple showed two gay men. I'm old. In my time that would have lost them any sympathy. Has our society changed in my lifetime to the point where the majority of people would be happy with that. Two gay men getting themselves a child by paid surrogacy overseas.

    • Protractor on 12/04/2025 - 19:07
      -6

      Yeah nah. All IVF should be user pays.

    • shroomish on 13/04/2025 - 00:56
      +6

      Because, in nature, you get an infected molar, it goes septic and half your face swells the size of a footbalp.

    • Lurk Hartog on 13/04/2025 - 08:48
      +9

      Nature's way is also mothers dying in childbirth, death from a broken bone, and dying from easily preventable illnesses, but I'm guessing you don't think we should stop intervening there.

  • urahara on 13/04/2025 - 02:07

    Just be neighbours and give equal love

    • urahara on 13/04/2025 - 02:08

      Ohh the property costs are more than the lawyer fees. Damn

      • morse on 13/04/2025 - 09:39

        Maybe that’s the compensation - but yeah, nah, that would be super weird.

    • Cluster on 14/04/2025 - 16:46

      Mmm, be forced to live in the same city and area as another couple for 18 years. Nope!

  • The Hawk on 13/04/2025 - 10:57
    +1

    There is no good answer for anyone involved and it depends on so many factors (and the ability of all parties to mentally accept whatever happens.

    Lets say they child stays with the birth parents, the only parents they have ever known.
    The two couples get along, introduce the biological parents and are both part of the childs life in what is a pretty (profanity) up situation for all involved.

    Or the biological parents agree it's best for the child to stay with the birth parents but are there in the background if/when the child wants to meet them?
    Or the birth parents agree it's best for the child to go with the biological parents but are there in the background if/when the child wants to meet them?

    But what if the bio parents don't have/can't have other kids and never have the chance of a child of their own?
    What if neither want to share?
    What if the birth parents never manage to conceive again?
    What if, what if, what if.

    The child themselves could go lots of different ways…

    Why didn't you tell me?
    Why did you tell me?
    Why didn't you want me?
    Isn't it wonderful that you wanted me!
    I'm glad I have four parents
    I hate my birth parents!
    I hate my biological parents…

    Bottom line, people are complex and you will never know if you made the right choice regardless of which one.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 13/04/2025 - 11:06
      +1

      this is pretty much the bulk the morality in question

      the best case senario is they all 'live' within a close proximity and have an influence over the childs life

      HOWEVER this 'may' not be possible for all sorts of reasons.

      The Child will be fine if all parties can agree to 'love' the child and put the childs interest 1st - obviously humans dont always act that way and this is insane if they put self interest 1st

      God help the judge who needs to decide how this plays out if they cant come to an agreement outside of court

      for me personally if i was ether party i would want the other parties to be part of the childs life as they are a key part but i would fight to my last breath for my child if someone tried to take them away permanently

  • Cherry12 on 13/04/2025 - 15:15

    I think that on this case the bio parents should have the rights given that they didn't give up their rights, they didn't donate the embryo.

    Monash should pay a very high compensation to both set of parents.

    If people donate embryos, eggs or sperm then all rights go to the birth parents.

    Although, of course, it's a very tricky situation. With the birth parents only having one embryo in the freezer, that's not a high success rate. Then the bio parents perhaps thought that their family was complete already, but of course will fight for that baby.

  • SuperMid on 13/04/2025 - 16:02

    Woman owns baby that pops out of her, pretty clear in my opinion.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 13/04/2025 - 16:16
      +2

      You cannot own a 'human' - i do think the courts will see her as the 'legal guardian' due to the relationship as being the childs mother.

      Now you cannot own a human but you do own your embryos and this was owned by the biological parents - when you donate this you sign over your right of ownership this obviously has not happened this the moral dilemma….

      The biological parents will likely argue the embryo was theirs and was used without their consent. - they probably will sue Monash IVF for millions but if they 'really' want a child of there own that is something no money cant buy
      (when your infertility doesnt allow it)

      The birthing mother will also rightly argue she birthed this child and has raise thos child for years, she is her daughter/Son and as he mother she has every right to fight till her last breath for her/him - she also will probably sue Monash IVF and get millions but ultimately her child doesn't not have her genetic material and if she wanted to continue her genetic line she would need to birth another child with her own Embryo

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join