– In 1965, there was no state responsibility for running hospitals or maternity wards in the country. This was a different time when infirmaries were run in a different way than today, and it cannot be proven that the state has any legal responsibility, said lawyer Asgeir Nygård at the Government Attorney in Oslo District Court on Tuesday, according to TV 2.
Two women and one woman’s biological mother have sued the state and Herøy municipality after the two women were confused at the <a href="https://www.archyde.com/they-were-born-as-twins-but-the-years-of-birth-were-2021-and-2022-they-were-born-as-twins-but-the-years-of-birth-were-2021-and-2022/” title=”They were born as twins … but the years of birth were 2021 and 2022 | They were born as twins … but the years of birth were 2021 and 2022″>maternity ward in Herøy in 1965. As a result, they ended up growing up with each other’s biological parents.
The maternity ward in question was privately run, and neither the municipality nor the state was involved in the operation.
The change was only discovered by the women in 2021. One woman’s mother, who is not part of the lawsuit, nevertheless discovered in 1981 that the woman could not be her biological daughter. The Norwegian Directorate of Health found out in 1985 that there had been a mix-up, but did not tell the people involved.
Nygård points out that in the 1980s there was no reporting obligation in cases where the authorities became aware of a change.
– 40 years later, the state believes that this was acceptable handling, legally speaking, he says.
Herøy municipality’s lawyer, Reidar Andersen, also says that the municipality cannot have any legal responsibility for what happened.
#state #denies #responsibility #baby #confusion #maternity #ward #privately #run
**Interview with Lawyer Asgeir Nygård on the Maternity Ward Mix-Up Case**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Asgeir. The case involving the two women who were switched at birth in 1965 raises fundamental questions about state responsibility. Can you explain why the government denies any liability in this case?
**Asgeir Nygård:** Certainly. The key point to understand is that, at the time, the maternity ward where the mix-up occurred was privately run. This means that neither the state nor the municipality had any legal obligation to oversee its operations. Our position is that since the state was not involved, there is no legal ground for them to accept responsibility now.
**Interviewer:** Interesting perspective. The women only discovered the truth in 2021, despite the Norwegian Directorate of Health being aware of the mix-up since 1985. How do you respond to the ethical implications of the failure to inform the families involved?
**Asgeir Nygård:** Legally, the situation is complex. In the 1980s, there was no requirement for authorities to report such changes. While many might view this as a serious ethical oversight, legally speaking, the handling of the situation falls within the norms of the time.
**Interviewer:** Some might argue that even without legal obligation, there is a moral duty for the state to intervene in cases affecting individuals’ identities and lives. How do you address this sentiment?
**Asgeir Nygård:** That’s an important point, and it certainly opens up a broader debate about the responsibilities of state agencies. While we maintain that there was no legal obligation, the moral questions raised by this situation are indeed significant and warrant ongoing discussion.
**Interviewer:** In light of this case, how do you think society should address potential gaps between legal responsibilities and ethical obligations in healthcare?
**Asgeir Nygård:** It’s essential for society to engage in this conversation. We must consider whether laws need to adapt to better reflect our ethical standards, especially in sensitive areas like healthcare and familial identification.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Asgeir, for shedding light on this complex issue. For our readers, how do you think the government should balance legal accountability and ethical responsibility in similar situations? Should the state step in to rectify past mistakes, even if legally it’s not bound to do so? We invite your thoughts and opinions.
