– 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 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**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Asgeir. Let’s delve into the case regarding the two women who were switched at birth in 1965. Can you clarify the state’s position on this issue?
**Asgeir Nygård:** Certainly. The state maintains that there was no legal responsibility for running the maternity ward at that time, as it was privately operated. Therefore, they deny any liability for what happened.
**Interviewer:** Given the profound impact this mix-up had on the women and their families, how do you respond to critics who argue that the state should take some responsibility, especially for the lack of notification when they discovered the error?
**Asgeir Nygård:** It’s a valid criticism. However, I must emphasize that in the 1980s, there was no legal requirement for the authorities to report changes like this. The situation was handled according to the laws in place at that time, which many might find acceptable from a legal perspective.
**Interviewer:** That raises an interesting point about how legal frameworks evolve. In your opinion, should there be more stringent duties for transparency and accountability when such serious errors occur, even if they predate current laws?
**Asgeir Nygård:** Absolutely. It’s crucial for legal systems to learn from past mistakes. Discussions around evolving legal responsibilities, especially regarding transparency, should be part of an ongoing dialogue in our society.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Asgeir. Now, to our readers: after hearing about the state’s stance and the historical context of this case, what do you believe? Should states have a form of accountability for past negligence, especially in matters as sensitive as a child’s identity? Join the debate in the comments below!
