In France, a Baby Switch and a Lesson in Maternal Love
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
How sad that the lawyer chose to argue that "the mothers may have been involved in creating the damage"... because they trusted the doctors? ...because they didn't possess some "maternal instinct" to recognize a baby they had spent almost no time with? Even after say 2 years or 10 years it's your fault because you didn't call the police to report that your child's skin tone doesn't match your own? How is it even acceptable to make this argument in a court?
I'm not really sure what the big deal is here, and whatever cultural significance was missed by the NYT author (surprising given the French-sounding name). Fact is, this was the plot of a hugely successful French movie in back in 1988, thus still entrenched in the memories of many adults. Of course, the movie was more of a white-collar vs blue-collar social satire and very funny. But the real story for the French audience was that of life imitating art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_a_Long_Quiet_River
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_vie_est_un_long_fleuve_tranq...
Just as an example, in case of a car accident in Japan, the blame (and thus damages/fines) is almost always shared (even in completely obvious situation where we would see one party 100% at fault), especially so when a passenger other than the driver was hurt - just so the driver in question wouldn't loose his face completely. 'Being there' at the wrong moment is enough to be partially blamed for what happened. There's something to this you know - if an incident is potent enough to destroy someone's social status, it often might be better for society to let it slip, rather than to go the 'nuclear option' (i.e. the American way) of throwing people in jail, make them loose their job, possibly their family, or even take away their children. With marriages it's similar - husbands/wives often rather don't want to know rather than to risk a family's stability.
It seems that everyone involved gave consent, so in this case, they are not illegal
We use the excuse of biological dissimilarities to get around the fact that most archetypes we've constructed have been artificially constructed -- gender, relationships, and socialization all revolve around certain attributes that are very arbitrary and have little, if anything, to do with biological characteristics. The controversial "wire mother" experiment carried out by Harry Harlow[1] proves this to some extent.
Another story much like the one in the NYT article, if you're interested: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/20/387309723/pain-but-no-regrets-...
Biology matters, but not as much as care.
> The other mother, also 18 at the time, asked another nurse why her baby lacked hair. She was told that phototherapy could also shorten hair.
Unfortunately, this kind of attitude from incompetent employees is damaging to the society, and it is quite commonplace in France.