Babies switched at birth (RAR/poll)

[Spoonist]

Just watched a documentary on an infameous case here in Sweden.
In 1942 two boys where switched at the local sick bay. The local procedures where non-existant and the nurses sloppy. The babies where kept in a seperate room to let the mothers rest and fetched for breastfeeding at a schedule. To save time the nurses fetched two babies at the same time, one on each arm. There was no ID markers on the babies and they where switched. One of the mothers protested right away but was told that it was nonsense by the nurse.
In 1945 the switch was so obvious by looking at children and parents that one set of parents put in for the court that the babies had been switched and they wanted to switch back. The other set of parents didn't want to upset the children and regardless of whether there had been a switch or not wanted to keep their child. This reached the highest court possible and was debated politically as well with rigirous checks put in place for this to never happen again.
The final judgement came when the boys where seven. The boys would be forcibly switched back. However the parents who didn't want to switch refused to move 'their' kid so in effect just one boy was collected by police and put in a new home. So the two boys where raised as brothers. Not until they where adults would they meet the other set of parents although they lived in adjacent villages.

The moral dilemma for you is, if you where judging the case how would you do? Whatever you do someone will be hurt. Especially the kids.

So you are the sole judge, no jury. The kids are seven. Neither kid has been told about the court case but they have probably heard the rumours. The test confirms that the kids where in fact switched. One set of parents want to switch to their biological child. The other doesn't want to upset the kids and refuse a switch, up to the point of not accepting their own biological child. The boys live in adjacent villages and goes to the same class in school.

Please give a moral justification for your decision.

Note 1 The 'hostpital' had been this sloppy for years, at least 10 other switches was discovered.
Note 1 Same thing happened recently in Check rep. so its not a problem of the past.

[Sarevok]

Its a coin toss. There is no inherent superior justification for either action. The case will be decided by the personal moral beliefs of the judging party.

[Purple]

I had to vote for the last option because I completely agree with Serevok.

Genetics does not make someone a good parent to a certain child by default (debatable thou). However the family that wants their real child back might get angry and take it out on the switched if refused (even without intent to do so).

At the age of 7, children that have not really lived with the other pair at all will not really be competent to make a judgment call about it. So that is also out of the question.

So the best reply to the case would be to politely tell them that the law does not have provisions for such things, kick them out of my court room and on the way out advise them to sue the hospital.

[Broomstick]

By the time the boys are seven their parents are the people who raised them, not the gene-donors. So leave them be and let them know they were accidently "adopted" shortly after birth at an appropriate time.

If a switch is discovered within days or weeks then switch back, but really, after a certain amount of time the disruption will not be in the best interest of the children.

[Alyeska]

The switch was dicovered within SECONDS. The one set of biological parents started complaining IMEDIATELY but the system resisted them the entire time. Its not their fault that the system failed to miserably. On top of that the other family refused to cooperate in good faith and then ended up with both kids. So the one family got robbed of their child and then lost everything.

[Paula42]

I clicked the option to give the parents joint custody as it is the closest to what i would do although i would have also liked to have clicked a couple of others like ask the children as well and combine them all. Blood is blood and a mother while being likely to fully love a child she raised will also have strong feelings towards a biological child she did not bring up, as such a transitional period that is best for the children for each particular circumstance must be tailored and i would oppose any definitive rule regarding such a traumatic situation.

[Eleas]

The switch was dicovered within SECONDS. The one set of biological parents started complaining IMEDIATELY but the system resisted them the entire time. Its not their fault that the system failed to miserably. On top of that the other family refused to cooperate in good faith and then ended up with both kids. So the one family got robbed of their child and then lost everything.

In Sweden during the 1940's, this kind of authoritative dismissal was common, and not just in Medicine. It was in fact only worse the further you go back; I recall my grandmother reminiscing about how, one cold winter, she wanted to board a bus but was refused passage because her ticket was from station A to station E, and she was at... station B, that is an intermediary station.

This wasn't the driver being a dick, it was simply due to the fact that there were no explicit rules that covered the eventuality. It wasn't at all strange for a customer asking to bend procedure to be summarily denied service, even if the procedure made no goddamn sense whatsoever.

[Talhe]

I voted to let the children decide, for what are probably simplistic reasons: It's what I'd want to do in their situation. I'd probably feel at least some sort of connection to my biological parents, but in all likelihood it would be weaker then the one I'd have with my current family. If I was forcibly split up with my family without my consent, I'd feel incredible resentment.

[Junghalli]

By the time the boys are seven their parents are the people who raised them, not the gene-donors.

Agreed. For this reason I'd be likely to simply leave them with their families of rearing, although it would depend on the particulars of the case.

The switch was dicovered within SECONDS. The one set of biological parents started complaining IMEDIATELY but the system resisted them the entire time. Its not their fault that the system failed to miserably.

No, but in my opinion the most important thing here should be what is good for the children, and like it or not from their perspective we're talking about basically taking them from the family that raised them for seven years and handing them over to what are probably strangers.

[B5B7]

I voted "Force both kids to switch", and BTW that is a bit biased phrasing of the option that I selected.
The children could have been switched at the age of 3 when one set of parents wished to do so - the children would quickly adapt. Also, could have made the switch gradual by having both families spend time with each other, and also with the children alternating between both spending time with one set of parents and then the other. Once they are used to being with both sets of parents they could then be assigned their correct parents and call the other parents uncle and aunt, and regularly visit them.

The injustice occurred because one set of parents was obdurate, and also because the police did not properly enforce the court's judgement. What is the point of a court if someone can simply ignore it? The police wouldn't even need to be involved if the resistant parents had been more reasonable earlier. One can understand not wanting to swap when the boys were aged 7, but that situation only arose because of their delaying tactics.

In Sweden during the 1940's, this kind of authoritative dismissal was common, and not just in Medicine. It was in fact only worse the further you go back; I recall my grandmother reminiscing about how, one cold winter, she wanted to board a bus but was refused passage because her ticket was from station A to station E, and she was at... station B, that is an intermediary station.

This wasn't the driver being a dick, it was simply due to the fact that there were no explicit rules that covered the eventuality. It wasn't at all strange for a customer asking to bend procedure to be summarily denied service, even if the procedure made no goddamn sense whatsoever.

Authoritative dismissal is not simply a Swedish condition but worldwide and is still common in lots of modern nations.
The ticket story is reminiscent of a report in a small newspaper cutting I made from 'The West Australian' of Saturday 2 October, referencing a story of 27 September in British 'The Daily Telegraph', about a Professor Martyn Evans who wished to get off a train at Darlington instead of continuing on to his originally paid for destination of Durham. But the station staff at Darlington would not let him leave until he promised to pay a 155 pound (!!) penalty for alighting at the wrong station. This online story mentions also that getting on at an intermediate station is also forbidden.

[someone_else]

I don't give a fuck for who are the genetic parents, your "parent" is whoever happens to have raised you. And 7 years are more than enough to feel at home where you are regardless of your genetic material.

I'd say to leave them "switched".

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I voted to let the children decide, for what are probably simplistic reasons: It's what I'd want to do in their situation. I'd probably feel at least some sort of connection to my biological parents, but in all likelihood it would be weaker then the one I'd have with my current family. If I was forcibly split up with my family without my consent, I'd feel incredible resentment.

So . . . let the seven year olds decide? Do you realize that there's a reason why the law doesn't permit children under a certain age the ability to make life-altering decisions, or enter into legally-binding contracts? It's because they're physically incapable of making informed decisions. A seven year old doesn't yet have the mental machinery in place to make a rational, informed decision. A seven year old is still at the credulous age where it is wholly possible to believe that a grossly obese man can fly around the world with magical reindeer and fit into a space barely large enough to accommodate an emaciated child; and that it's perfectly acceptable for this man to annually break into your house.

In this case, the law must decide for the children, because the children aren't really capable of grasping the future consequences of their actions, nor are they capable of taking everything into account. They're certainly not going to have a deep-set "connection" with their biological parents, since they've never had anything to do with them.

So let's consider how much harm is assessed in each decision:

A) The OTL option: One set of parents were deeply harmed, since not only did they not get their original child back, but they also lost the child they were raising. One child was deeply harmed, as they were removed from their home environment and sent to another home. This is not a smart decision.

B) Force both to switch: Both children are deeply harmed, since they've been forcibly removed from their home environments. Both sets of parents gain a small bonus because the crime perpetrated against them has been resolved. Both parents are harmed, because now they must adjust to integrating a strange child into their homes. The set of parents who believed in "live and let live" are harmed more, because their wishes are disregarded. All-in-all, not a good choice.

C) Let the children stay: Both children benefit, because their home environments don't change. Both parents benefit, because they don't have to adjust to integrating a strange child into their homes. Both parents lose out on not getting their biological children back, and the set that wants their biological child back loses more. The child living with these parents may suffer from their parents taking their resentment out on a perceived strange child.

D) Give both parents joint custody: Both children benefit, since they don't completely leave their home environments. However, both children suffer, as they are now being shuttled back and forth on a schedule set by whichever set of parents had the better lawyer. The parents lose out, because not only do they not get their biological children back, they must now adjust to a completely new environment where a strange child is rotated in and out of their homes. I don't think this is as good an option as letting the children stay in their present homes.

So, I believe I'd choose to let the children stay in their present homes; on the theory that the benefit of minimal home-life disruption for all parties involved outweighs the harm that would be done in going with any of the other choices.

[Broomstick]

While seven year old children do not have the mental maturity to be fully responsible or make fully informed decisions they ARE old enough to hold opinions and have feelings about issues that concern them. It is entirely reasonable to ask how they perceive the situation. Seven year olds are not mindless automatons and should not be treated as such.

Personally, I think biological parentage is often give too much weight in these matters. Yes, it is important, and has importance to people, but it's not the final word in who your family truly is. I wish English had common, easy words distinguishing biological parents who merely contribute genes and social parents who are the ones that actually do the work of raising you.

[Alyeska]

GrandMasterTerwynn, your entire argument ignores one issue. One family was immediately upset by the change and sought legal recourse Imediately. They were willing to give up the child and in fact went childless rather than keep the wrong child.

Now factor that into your list.

[eion]

It's a rough case, but the law is clear. The parents had no legal connection to the children they were raising, and it may well be possible for a later authority to charge both sets of parents with kidnapping if no action was taken.

Now, if both sets of parents mutually agreed to adopt the children they were raising, that would change everything, but one set clearly wanted the return of their birth child, and the other set were intent on not moving either child. It's a decision of Solomonesque consequences.

You have to switch the kids unless both parents agree to adopt the child the hospital forced upon them.

[Chaotic Neutral]

I'm not seeing where the biological parents should have any say in what happens to children. So what if they share DNA? That is in no way a good enough reason to rip a child away from their parents.

[fgalkin]

I'm not seeing where the biological parents should have any say in what happens to children. So what if they share DNA? That is in no way a good enough reason to rip a child away from their parents.

So, suppose you procreate one day (unlikely), it would be perfectly allright for me to come to your house, take your child away, and replace him with another kid of the same age? Is that what you're saying?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Chaotic Neutral]

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

[Alyeska]

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

All children of poor families are to be removed and placed into state care and adopted to rich families.

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

[Chaotic Neutral]

I don't think even the rich could bear the burden of that many children.

[eion]

I'm not seeing where the biological parents should have any say in what happens to children. So what if they share DNA? That is in no way a good enough reason to rip a child away from their parents.

Their names are the ones on the child's birth certificate. Right or wrong, the law gives them broad authority over their children until their age of majority. Barring any adoption or conviction of child neglect (and since when is wanting your children to live with you proof of neglect?) they get to make the calls.

[Mayabird]

I don't think even the rich could bear the burden of that many children.

That is the sound of the point going over your tiny and empty head.
[line 2]

[Korto]

What a nasty little decision. I myself would elect for leaving the children where they are the majority of the time, with (enforceable) periodic (holiday?) custody for the biological parents, but with that not on the list, I went for shared custody.

The well being of the children is more important than the parents.

Taking this statement absolutely literally, which may not be the way you meant it, why? What is it about having children that makes you a second-class citizen?
Is my life not worth as much as my children? I may give up my life in favour of my children, but that's my decision to make, not a judgement of society's at large.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Taking this statement absolutely literally, which may not be the way you meant it, why? What is it about having children that makes you a second-class citizen? Is my life not worth as much as my children? I may give up my life in favour of my children, but that's my decision to make, not a judgement of society's at large.

Just because you or your wife gave birth to a child, doesn't mean that you should be able to go to a child you have never met and remove him from his family. If you have an attachment to a child you have only seen once, that's your problem.

[Korto]

But what I am objecting to is the global nature of your statement "The well being of the children is more important than the parents." which places some people as a lower class than others by virtue of them giving birth, an opinion you then seemed to reinforce by the only objection you had to children being taken away from poor parents and given to rich being that

I don't think even the rich could bear the burden of that many children.

The certain huge and possibly permanent harm to the parents is over-ridden by a possible moderate improvement for the children?


In the OP case, a definite imbalance of harm can be seen. The children could be devestated by being swapped, while the parents "only" badly hurt by them not. That's why I would suggest holiday custody as the best of a bad lot.
Parents DO have rights by virtue of giving birth, whether you like it or not, and those rights were never given up.