Amanda McGuinn, 38, and her husband Paul are blaming NHS doctors for not spotting their daughter Matilda was disabled.
A mother who admits she would have aborted her child if she had known she was disabled is now suing the NHS for “wrongful birth.”
Amanda McGuinn, 38, and her husband Paul say NHS doctors were negligent for not picking up on “abnormalities” in their unborn child Matilda that should have alerted them to her condition.
And the couple say they would have “elected to terminate the pregnancy” had they been made aware of the “risks of the baby being born with serious handicap.”
Matilda – who is now 8 – was born in August 2008 at Lewisham Hospital and although she is a much-loved child her parents say the NHS should pay for the extra expense of bringing up a severely disabled child.
But the couple, from Lee, South London, were heartbroken when it was discovered that their newborn was “profoundly physically and cognitively disabled”.
And they are now suing Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust for massive damages in a “wrongful birth” case at London’s High Court.
Read Also:
Lawyers for the couple, who run their own construction company, argue that should include the costs of the round the clock care she will need for life.
The family’s lawyers claim doctors were negligent in not spotting “abnormalities” in the unborn baby that should have alerted them to her condition.
Amanda and Paul says they would have elected to terminate the pregnancy had they been made aware of the risks of the baby being born with serious handicap
And the couple say they would have “elected to terminate the pregnancy” had they been made aware of the “risks of the baby being born with serious handicap.”
Angus McCullough QC, for the mother, told Mr Justice Jeremy Baker today: “The risk that Matilda would be born with substantial disability could and should have been recognised well before she was born.”
Scans performed at 30 and 35 weeks into Mrs McGuinn’s pregnancy ought to have set alarm bells ringing, the barrister claimed.
“With proper ante-natal care, significant abnormalities apparent during ultrasound scanning would have been acted upon,” he added.
The barrister claimed that had the findings of the scans – including that Matilda had a very small head – been responded to properly, the couple would have been referred to King’s College Hospital, where they would have received “counselling” on their situation.
“In light of the counselling that they would have received as to the risks of the baby being born with serious handicap, the couple would have elected to terminate the pregnancy,” he told the judge.
But the NHS Trust deny any liability to compensate the family, saying there was nothing wrong with the antenatal care given to Mrs McGuinn and no reason to refer her for counselling.
The Trust also denies that any referral would have led to termination being offered or accepted on the clinical information which would have been available.
No value has yet been put on the mother’s claim, but given the severity of Matilda’s disabilities, it is likely to run well into seven figures.
