My Comment: To be very frank, I too feel the facts of the case required some kind of compensation to be paid to the parents, who were expecting their child to be carrying their genes but were denied the same. However, at the same time, it starts the same debate of nature v. nurture. In fact, in this case, the parents were so offended that they demanded compensation for nurturing the wrongly born child, which is obnoxious. “Genetic affinity”: I am not sure if this is a right precedent. Wouldn’t have it been better to compensate the parents just for the negligence of the hospital? But, of course, to show the damage you need something like “genetic affinity”. Why can’t negligence be compensated for just by showing an injury! That would have been a much better precedent than what the Singapore SC has done now.
About the Author
Ankur Mutreja is an advocate-cum-writer, and his blogs are amongst his modes of expression. He has also authored six books: "Kerala Hugged"; "Light: Philosophy"; "Flare: Opinions"; "Sparks: Satire and Reviews"; "Writings @ Ankur Mutreja"; and "Nine Poems"; which can be downloaded free from the links on the top menu.